D&D 5E Strengths of 5th Ed

[Savage Wombat]

I like to start planning campaigns well in advance, as I'm lazy.

My group's currently playing PathFinder APs. If I decide I want to play 5th ed, I'll want to have a better reason than just "I like these here new books."

From what you've seen so far - what would you say are the strengths of 5th ed as far as campaign design? How should someone like me build a game that showcases those strengths - that says "this campaign works better with these rules than with the old ones?"

 

[RangerWickett]

1. The math is a hell of a lot simpler, so over the course of a long campaign you'll waste less time figuring out what stats a monster needs to be a balanced encounter, and you won't have to track as many things in combat.

2. Characters are less magic item dependent. Hopefully this means it's easier to just drop whatever treasure is narratively interesting, instead of having to provide the mathematically-appropriate number of +1 rings or +2 cloaks.

Basically, it plays faster. You can still handle the same situations you always could, but it's less fiddly, giving you more time to focus on having fun, rather than adjudicating or assembling widgets.

 

[Wicht]

Good questions, [MENTION=1932]Savage Wombat[/MENTION]

1. The math is a hell of a lot simpler, so over the course of a long campaign you'll waste less time figuring out what stats a monster needs to be a balanced encounter, and you won't have to track as many things in combat.

2. Characters are less magic item dependent. Hopefully this means it's easier to just drop whatever treasure is narratively interesting, instead of having to provide the mathematically-appropriate number of +1 rings or +2 cloaks.

I keep hearing about these DMs that "balance" their encounters and treasures but have to wonder how many actually do that? Myself, I just throw in what seems fun and semi-level appropriate and let the players worry about whether they can survive.

Basically, it plays faster. You can still handle the same situations you always could, but it's less fiddly, giving you more time to focus on having fun, rather than adjudicating or assembling widgets.

Why does it play faster? Do the monsters die quicker? Or do slower players just make decisions faster because of less options? Will it help experienced DMs who already adjucate quickly, or is it going to be more of a boon for newer DMs?

Also, just to play devil's advocate, what if a person think assembling widgets to some degree is fun? Does 5e naturally support more complex character builds and monster abilities?

 

[Wicht]

Also and because this seems a good place to ask, have "eladrins" been given the boot for good old fashioned elves in 5e?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I keep hearing about these DMs that "balance" their encounters and treasures but have to wonder how many actually do that? Myself, I just throw in what seems fun and semi-level appropriate and let the players worry about whether they can survive.

Depends on how you define balance, as always.

Me, I try and create creatures without knowing exactly when I will use them or for what purpose, and without regard to what level the PCs will be when they meet them.

I'm on board with leaving the survival part to the players.

 

[Rhenny]

In a nutshell, it is easier for me to DM. Much easier than 3.5e and Pathfinder, and even easier than 4e.

Combat lasts as long as you want it to last. Most combats are quick due both monsters dying quicker and players making decisions quicker (there are not as many specific buttons to press, especially at lower levels). I've been able to design 1-2 round encounters all the way up to 12+ round combats. Even the 12+ round combat took about 45 minutes to 1 hour, which isn't so time consuming.

Because DMs can control the length of combat it allows us to balance the play experience to our tastes. It is really easy to have a 2 hour session that incorporates interaction, exploration and combat in a way that advances the adventure/campaign story in a meaningful way.

I've found, especially when using the optional skilless action resolution system, that my players think more like their PCs. When they make decisions, they don't study their character sheets and look for what they can do. They just tell me what they want to do based on their overall understanding of their character and its strengths. I love that. In fact, I'm working on a houserule that expands the skilless aspect even further to encourage complete character emersion. If anyone is interested, I have lots of ideas and play reports in my blog at WotC.
http://community.wizards.com/rhenny...tion_resolution_and_saving_throws_in_dd_next_

Of course, the final version of D&D Next is not done yet, and I imagine that there will be a lot more in it so that people who like making more fiddly choices will get that opportunity.

Overall, I agree with RogerWickett.

 

[Rhenny]

Also and because this seems a good place to ask, have "eladrins" been given the boot for good old fashioned elves in 5e?

At this point it is just High Elves and Wood Elves. They say that the next package (last playtest package) will have Dragonborn, Tiefling, and even Kender. This suggests that eventually, they'll have many of the races from different settings. Not sure what will be in launch though.

 

[Wicht]

Depends on how you define balance, as always.

Me, I try and create creatures without knowing exactly when I will use them or for what purpose, and without regard to what level the PCs will be when they meet them.

I'm on board with leaving the survival part to the players.

I'm not throwing huge dragons at 1st level characters, by all means. And I do think the CR charts a pretty useful little guide (as are treasure level guides for the monetary value of treasure). But I never anguish about whether or not I think the monster is perfectly balanced and I certainly never worry that my player's characters have the right equipment. That's their job. My job is to make the world interesting; so I just throw in whatever treasure I think is thematically appropriate or nifty. And in my experiences nifty treasures win over utilitarian treasures every time in player approval.

I have DMed some players at Cons who, in conversation, talk a lot about balance and broken builds, or broken rules or who claim to have "friends" who do, but I notice some of these coming back year after year to play in my new scenarios, so I have to think that part of it is just GMs who allow such concerns to take precedence over story to the detriment of their own games.

 

[Wicht]

At this point it is just High Elves and Wood Elves.

Well that's one point in its favor. For some reason, and its probably slightly irrational, but the whole "eladrin" thing was obnoxious and off-putting. Its one of the reasons I think I never actually even tried 4e.

I'm not sure, on the other hand, how I actually feel about having "fewer buttons to press," or what that actually means, game-wise, especially at low-levels. I kinda like a lot of options.

I think I'll have to see 5e in action to get a feel for how it is different though, because often,the complaints made are foreign to me and so I am not sure of improvements or the validity thereof. 4e is the only edition I have not played in, and from my recollection, story-wise and game wise, there's not much difference between how we played basic D&D and how we now play Pathfinder except I would like to think I've got better at running games. (I will grant that their is a higher level of tactical choices and less abastraction but I think that's because when I was 9 I couldn't afford minis.) I am also admittedly just a little skeptical because I remember almost identical comments to the nature of 4e (faster combat, more player immersion, etc.) and have to wonder if some of it is not just "new shiny" syndrome.

 

[Kinak]

I think, even when throwing setting-appropriate (rather than necessarily balance-appropriate) enemies at PCs, 5.0 does have some advantages. ACs and saves are fairly flat, which means character effectiveness doesn't ramp up or drop off as quickly outside the approved level range.

With the ease of adjudication, I'd be tempted to run 5.0 as an extreme sandbox. Start out with a mostly blank map including a range of threats and vague ideas of what's beyond, then just let the players run wild and fill in the map as you go. Especially if you're running a light version without skills, I think it lends itself well to improv.

That said, I'm in basically the same boat as you. Wizards would have to put out a product that's not just better than Pathfinder, but hugely better for me to switch. Even if it were going head to head with a new edition of Pathfinder that I didn't already have the books for, I feel good supporting Paizo in a way I don't for Wizards.

And in my experiences nifty treasures win over utilitarian treasures every time in player approval.

Absolutely.

The ring of protection +2 that saves you a dozen times? Meh. The ring of feather falling that lets you survive being dropped from 200' up by a pissed off dragon you just shot in the face with your bow? Priceless.

Cheers!
Kinak