D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest Packet Is Here!

[RangerWickett]

I don't like this. I forbids some classic D&D fighting styles (two scimitars) and a lot of real world ones. But it adds the stupid two whips and two rapiers

And the awesome whip-rapier.

I'm sure there will eventually be rules for fighting with bigger weapons, just with a mathematically-balanced appropriate mechanical penalty.

 

[Revinor]

also added an adventure.

I'm utterly disappointed with combat encounters quality in sample adventure. It is coming back to worst of 2e/3e days.

Chamber 10: 1d3+1 orcs attack you

Chamber 14: Gray ooze attacks you

Chamber 77: 1d4+1 orcs attack you

etc, etc

No terrain-based tactics. No multi-role monster parties which can use some brain. Each monster is just AC+tohit+damage stats and single special ability, which is often not interesting at all.

I understand that some people don't like 4e mechanics (encounter powers, healing surges, same 'shape' of development for all classes), but I think that 4e encounter design is state of art. Coming back from that level into worst random-roll generated room after room dungeons is not a good thing.

 

[Blackwarder]

I'm utterly disappointed with combat encounters quality in sample adventure. It is coming back to worst of 2e/3e days.

Chamber 10: 1d3+1 orcs attack you

Chamber 14: Gray ooze attacks you

Chamber 77: 1d4+1 orcs attack you

etc, etc

No terrain-based tactics. No multi-role monster parties which can use some brain. Each monster is just AC+tohit+damage stats and single special ability, which is often not interesting at all.

I understand that some people don't like 4e mechanics (encounter powers, healing surges, same 'shape' of development for all classes), but I think that 4e encounter design is state of art. Coming back from that level into worst random-roll generated room after room dungeons is not a good thing.

If you must have 4e style encounters than you should wait for tactical rules module... I for one don't think that not having the advanture spell to me how to run an encounter is such a bad thing...

Warder

 

[PinkRose]

Or maybe, they haven't put much effort into the encounters because that's not where their focus is yet since they are willing to take 2 years to get this edition done right.

 

[Revinor]

If you must have 4e style encounters than you should wait for tactical rules module... I for one don't think that not having the advanture spell to me how to run an encounter is such a bad thing...

It is not about telling how to run it, it is about having interesting monster interactions. Something like 2 orc warriors, 2 goblin slave minions, 1 orc shaman, 1 archer and sharp swinging pendulum in same room, instead of 5 orc warriors.

It is not about movement on squares (which I think tactical module will be about), it is about adventure designer spending 2 hours preparing interesting and challenging combat encounter instead of 10 seconds of writing "1d3+2 orcs".

BTW, why dice notation for amount of monsters?? If they expect it to scale for number of PCs, they should write 3-5. I can understand it in 'wandering monsters' table, but in adventure itself?

Or maybe, they haven't put much effort into the encounters because that's not where their focus is yet since they are willing to take 2 years to get this edition done right.

Well, they had enough time to put pages and pages of very verbose prose in that adventure, which is completely unneeded for rules playtest. So they are putting effort in having us 'playtesting' their literacy skills, but not in encounter design?

 

[Blackwarder]

They don't expect it to scale to the number of PC, they tell you what will generally happen. It might be two orcs looking for mushrooms or six orcs heading toward one of the city barricade.

The advanture is not written about the players, it's written about what is happening in Blingdenstone and how the characters can interact with it.

There are some set combat encounters in the advanture but it isn't all of them or even most of them, it's your job as the DM to make it as interesting or as boring as you would like.

Warder

 

[Revinor]

There are some set combat encounters in the advanture but it isn't all of them or even most of them, it's your job as the DM to make it as interesting or as boring as you would like.

Why then not coming with ny own adventure itself in first place? Or actually game mechanics as well?

I was under impression that playtest package was to test the system as they see it, not my ability to turn bland into gold... Forge motto comes into mind - "System matters". And we are discussing here what is presented, not that can be made out of it with enough changes.

And what is given is 1d3+2 orcs, without variety, terrain, interesting tactics or mechanics.

 

[Mercutio01]

And what is given is 1d3+2 orcs, without variety, terrain, interesting tactics or mechanics.

Do you lack the imagination to provide those yourself so much that you rely on someone else to do that work for you?

 

[Anselyn]

I'm not entirely sure which style first used the brace of rapiers, but I'd guess it was from Italian dueling styles.

Here's a link talking about the style: The Arte of Defense


And here's a video of some practice:

Case of rapiers/florentine demonstration - YouTube

Very good.

The thought I have watching this and my son fencing with sabre is the following.

Do you/we really think that if either of these fighters moved their focus to have a quick poke (nay - a full attack) at a third person moving past them that they wouldn't be immediately hit by their opponent because of the opening they gave on themselves.

It seems to me that having a final flourish at someone who turns to flee, leaving you unthreatened, is very different from having free full un-penaltied attacks while still under threat.

 

[Revinor]

Do you lack the imagination to provide those yourself so much that you rely on someone else to do that work for you?

No. I can also come up with adventure flow and even with my own rules. But what does it have to do with playtest material?

If I look at painting and say 'I would put this into my bedroom, but artist really draws ugly faces' is your reaction 'what, cannot you repaint face on top of his painting?' ?

I'm saying that things presented in playtest adventure, are, in my opinion, huge step back from quality of combat encounters from 4th edition, which is a kind of disappointing giving promising developments in other areas.

Examples of proper answers:
-I don't like grid-based combat
-Too many monster types are too complicated to handle, so it is easier to manage combat and flavor descriptions of combat with single monster type
-Rules are too poor to make interesting monsters
-In podcast XYZ they said they are sorry about that and will update it with a lot more interesting encounters
etc
Answer like "fix it by yourself and if you don't want to it means you lack imagination" is not what I expected. Maybe I should, it is internet after all..