D&D 5E Frustrated with Next

[Retreater]

Ok. I'm frustrated to all heck with D&D Next. My group has wanted me to run it as an ongoing adventure in place of a normal campaign, and I am finding that it is in such an underdeveloped state that it is not only unsuited for long term play, but also not fun to play (IMO).

I cannot challenge the characters with the monsters. They are poorly designed. I will have to re-write the bestiary to give the monsters even a slight chance to challenge the party. The rogue's auto success on all traps and searching makes the exploration tier of the game anti-climactic.

Roleplaying is fun, but playing make believe without using any rules does not make the system good.

Is anyone else trying to run Next in a campaign like setting? If so, what is your experience with it? Have you made any changes that work?

 

[john112364]

Without a lot of work on your end, you really can't run it as a campaign. The rules are basically a rough draft and unfinished. They are no where close to being a complete game. I guess you could use the framework, but it's going to be a lot of "winging it on the fly".

 

[tlantl]

Do you own any books from editions past?

If you do then you have all the rules you need to run a campaign using Next. If there are rules you can't live without then use them.

D&D Next is a playtest of the core system without all of the other stuff involved with a complete game. It's not intended to replace your ordinary D&D system it's being developed with our help so that it satisfies the needs of the majority of D&D players, not to replace your prefered system until the kinks are worked out and the game is published with everything bolted together.

Perhaps if you told us what you think you need to actually run a campaign besides a slew of monsters and a few more levels and a more comprehensive spell list, etc.

I'd suggest using an advancement chart where the players level more slowly to increase the playability of the few levels we have and maybe start at first level using the updated rules. There was a time when characters leveled so slowly that we could play every day for months and only gain two or three.

Take your time and slow down there's no rush, the game won't be available for a couple of years to come.

 

[Retreater]

D&D Next is a playtest of the core system without all of the other stuff involved with a complete game. It's not intended to replace your ordinary D&D system it's being developed with our help so that it satisfies the needs of the majority of D&D players, not to replace your prefered system until the kinks are worked out and the game is published with everything bolted together.

So I should not try to run a regular adventure with it? Okay. I can do that.

Perhaps if you told us what you think you need to actually run a campaign besides a slew of monsters and a few more levels and a more comprehensive spell list, etc.

Actually, I do not need a slew of monsters, more levels, or more spell list. I would prefer there to be rules for levels 1-3, a dozen well designed adversaries, and a handful of useful spells than the catch-all of untested material WotC sent us.

The monsters cannot hit. A -1 attack bonus is laughable against a PC with AC 17 at 1st level. (The +1 is not much better.) Every monster might as well be a 4E minion, because they go down in a single hit. I'm throwing Elite 3rd level monsters (with mooks) against a party of 3 1st level characters, and they are being soundly defeated.

So this is not an issue of there not being enough material. It is an issue of the material not being useful or even in a Beta test format. It is as if there was no internal playtesting at all or even someone looking at the stats with mathematic probability in mind.

I was not attempting to run an epic, multi year campaign. Rather, a simple 1-3 level adventure module using the encounter design rules. And the rules failed.

 

[Roger]

Sending in a mob of 40 giant centipedes might change your mind.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Manbearcat]

Sending in a mob of 40 giant centipedes might change your mind.

Or it might reinforce it given that the ruleset doesn't provide any sort of swarm rules that elegantly and swiftly handles such a mob/mass and delivers the horror/threat that it represents. Rather it forces you to roll separate attack rolls for a a swarm of rats or a tide of centipedes and hopes you aren't bored into submission by roll 12.

Unfortunately, Retreater, you are correct. There is little in the way of non-combat challenge mechanical resolution or tactical depth/threat within the bestiary. I suggest that you read the rules for glaring holes and report that to WotC. Further, the best way to test the material (that I have found) is to forego adventuring and have your players build characters and run them through isolated, closed/episodic challenges. You should be able to generate a sense of the various build features' tangible and intangible mechanical worth and how well your expectations of the classes' output matches up with your expectations of their archetypical fiction.

 

[Stormonu]

I think one of the mistakes D&D has settled into is the "level/CR" of monster calculations.

Current thinking tends to be that a monster of X level/CR is a slight challenge for a party of 4-5 characters of X level.

I really think a lot of the complaints about monsters would go away if they changed it so that a monster of X level/CR is a MATCH for one character of X level.

Other than that, I think I've given up on the playtest as well. I don't have the time, players or energy to devote to doing a proper playtest anymore. I'm just going to have to wait for the final rules, I think. Sad, because I wanted to have a say in how the game develops.

 

[timASW]

I havent found a single thing preventing me from running an E6 campaign other then having to generate level 6 so far.

I suppose I am not a w4rrior looking for any slight problem with the system though. I'm just looking for an interesting mechanical framework for adventures and I'm not afraid to actually DM and adjudicate situations...... Even though a DM being empowered no doubt confuses and enrages the afore mentioned W4rriors.

.......waiting for how I'm wrong and nothing is better or old school or easier for the DM despite my personal experience of being being easier for the DM.

 

[FireLance]

I suppose I am not a w4rrior looking for any slight problem with the system though. I'm just looking for an interesting mechanical framework for adventures and I'm not afraid to actually DM and adjudicate situations...... Even though a DM being empowered no doubt confuses and enrages the afore mentioned W4rriors.

Sigh. And after Morrus posted such a nice note at the top of the page, too.

[On Edition Wars] Don't even think about it. Talk about what you like, and let other people like what they like. Be glad we're all at least still tabletop gamers.

EDIT: Added link, quote.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Well put Firelance - that comment above contributed nothing to the thread.

For the OP - To playtest style, we are definitely going for a campaign approach next. We have had three separate playtests (one being 5 sessions long - all documented here under the thread 'Our 5 Session Playtest').

However, of more interest to you might be our Rise of the Runelords Campaign Playtest. Yes, we intend to run a campaign/adventure path and keep updating as the game evolves.

I too saw early probs with the creatures. Early XP values looked way out of whack and I was worried levels would be way to fast for the AP, but at least they have fixed those. I still see the creatures have not been given an attack bonus. I would be okay with that if Wizards didn't get one, but to say a wizard is that much better at fighting is ludicrous. Having said that, I am not sure whether to adjust the creatures' attack bonuses. We will see how things go. I would rather see the PC's dropped to +2/+1/+0 for the Fighters/Clerics & Rogues/Wizards myself.

And yes, weaker creatures are meant to be like minions, so treat them as such when encounter building. They certainly do not fit the one orc being a challenge for 4 1st level PCs (and I am glad of it). I like to use a lot of the humanoids that gather in numbers in actual numbers

Anyway, I love the backgrounds, specialties and options for putting PCs together. I think there is MORE than enough for non-combat stuff for our group. We roll with it a lot and are enjoying the not having a rule for everything and using straight checks more often.

I can't speak specifics yet. We start in 2 weeks, but I have posted a lot of preliminary stuff on the thread.