D&D 5E First Time DMing 5E - What Should I Look Out For?

[Bigassgeek]

I'm running my first game under the D&D Next playtest rules next week. For those of you who've run 5E playtest games, are there any rules in particular that surprised you, or that you forgot to implement, or that played very differently than you anticipated?

 

[1of3]

Not really. It's not that different from former editions for the most part. You might want to point out how spell preparation works.

Also several spells were changed.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The biggest thing you should look out for is that the math isn't very tight, mostly meaning the game is too easy. 1st-level characters are easily capable of slaying 1st-level monsters in one hit before the monsters even get to act. Also, note that a single monster (no matter what it is) cannot challenge a whole party of PCs. This kind of breaks old adventures: for example, the 7 HD minotaur in the Caves of Chaos is the easiest fight ever.

 

[Will Doyle]

Some obvious things: start thinking in terms of attribute checks and attribute saves, and be mindful of ways to grant advantage and disadvantage. When I first DMed 5e I kept forgetting those, and used bonuses or penalties instead.

 

[Lokiare]

Since the play test is over. I'd suggest you just go play 1E or 2E instead. Its much more balanced, tested, and overall a better game.

If you insist on playing the play test, realize that it will take a master DM that can make things up as they go, know when to allow auto-success, auto-failure, and when to make the players roll for something. There is little to no guidance except "how hard do you 'feel' this should be?" which is pretty much meaningless unless you are a very experienced DM. I'd suggest reading the skill and encounter creation articles over at www.angrydm.com. They will help any game regardless of how badly put together it is.

The monsters are push overs. You will have to adjust. For the most part you might just want to throw out their entire hit point totals and just track how many times they get hit and determine when you want them to fall. For instance kobolds will probably fall on the first hit no matter what, whereas an Ogre is probably going to take 10+ hits to drop.

Watch out for save or die and save or suck spells and monsters, they are riddled throughout 5E. Keep in mind its no fun for a player to die and have to create a new character because they rolled low on a dice. If you use these, give plenty of warning and give a way to avoid the save. Players will use these effects often so don't get attached to a creature. If the players can see it, its fair game to kill it with a single spell or hit.

Overall again, I'd just urge you to go play something else as 5E as it stands now is really rough and not even as well put together as the early editions of D&D...

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm running my first game under the D&D Next playtest rules next week. For those of you who've run 5E playtest games, are there any rules in particular that surprised you, or that you forgot to implement, or that played very differently than you anticipated?

It is not as easy to run as it is said to be. You still need to cross-check a lot of stuff, especially because you can't trust what you know from previous editions.

 

[Wyckedemus]

Advice for DMing D&D Next.

Since the play test is over. I'd suggest you just go play 1E or 2E instead. Its much more balanced, tested, and overall a better game.

If you insist on playing the play test, realize that it will take a master DM that can make things up as they go, know when to allow auto-success, auto-failure, and when to make the players roll for something. There is little to no guidance except "how hard do you 'feel' this should be?" which is pretty much meaningless unless you are a very experienced DM. I'd suggest reading the skill and encounter creation articles over at www.angrydm.com. They will help any game regardless of how badly put together it is.

The monsters are push overs. You will have to adjust. For the most part you might just want to throw out their entire hit point totals and just track how many times they get hit and determine when you want them to fall. For instance kobolds will probably fall on the first hit no matter what, whereas an Ogre is probably going to take 10+ hits to drop.

Watch out for save or die and save or suck spells and monsters, they are riddled throughout 5E. Keep in mind its no fun for a player to die and have to create a new character because they rolled low on a dice. If you use these, give plenty of warning and give a way to avoid the save. Players will use these effects often so don't get attached to a creature. If the players can see it, its fair game to kill it with a single spell or hit.

Overall again, I'd just urge you to go play something else as 5E as it stands now is really rough and not even as well put together as the early editions of D&D...

Please do not pay attention to Lokiare's advice. You want to try D&D Next, so let's help you with that, shall we?

First, low level monsters can be easy to hit and kill. But heroes have limited hit points and resources as well. Tossing 7 goblins at a group means that at least 1 PC is going to take 3 points of damage, after which the group will have to determine whether they want to take a rest to heal up, use a spell, or just keep going. PCs can feel fragile too. That can build tension for the story. I say let them get some easy fights in to get used to the combat system. Maybe one or two tougher fights towards the end, to let them feel fear or a challenge.

Secondly, the game's action resolution system is based on "ability checks" not skill checks. The game wants to train you to use a certain vocabulary for making ability checks. You're encouraged to say "Make a strength check to jump over the ravine." or "Everyone, please Make a Wisdom Perception check." This tells people what the ability check is that they are supposed to make, and educates them about any proficiencies (skills, tools) that can help with that check.

It is not hard to determine if you want a player to make an ability check. If there is a penalty for failure, or if time is of the essence, or something is particularly hard, then sure, have them make an ability check. Otherwise, if success is inevitable over time, and there is no chance for failure, then just say they succeed and tell them what happens when they succeed. If it was a hard job, say that it took them a little time to succeed.

If they search a broad location, and something is hidden there, have them make a search check. If they say they want to search a specific location and there is something to find there (coins in a creature's spoor or on its body, a coffer under a bed, a secret door at the dead end of a hallway, then just let them find it. Reward them for interacting with the environment.

Read the How to Play document and DM Guidelines document. They are indeed helpful.

Don't be a slave to the numbers. If you make a fight too easy, add a complication to the mix (wandering monster or reinforcements or something). Or just let the heroes feel awesome with their butt-kicking. If you made it too hard, fudge some rolls, or make the enemies overly bold and spend actions to gloat, or have an ally or two leave to deliver messages to leaders.

Something that is helpful is to give a reason why the bad guys don't want to kill the heroes. Give the heroes a chance to use ingenuity to escape. Things like that. Later, when you and the players have more experience and the stakes are higher, you don't need to pull as many punches.

I have to get going, but that's my first bit of advice.

... have fun!

 

[Wulfgar76]

First thing you should do is ignore the poster that told you to drop the playtest and go play older versions of D&D.

That said, the biggest thing to watch out for is the current weakness and low HP of monsters. Monsters in general have low HP, poor saves and die quickly. This is undoubtedly because the designers have been focusing most of their attention on classes and the system itself. Expect monsters to be tougher when the real game comes out. Also right now there is no 4e-style 'Boss' or 'Elite' template or mechanics with monsters. 'Solo' monsters, even those far higher level than the party, get slaughtered pretty bad. Hopefully the DMG will contain some ways to make 'boss' monsters more robust.

Character saving throws are still pretty low. A +2 bonus to Wisdom saves is a pretty hefty bonus. Many characters will have +0. So if you set the DC of an enemy spell at 14, expect the whole party to fail.

Also realize how massive of a benefit advantage is, and how severe disadvantage is. It feels like nearly auto success or auto failure. I've been playing around with +2/-2 modifiers when I want situational modifiers less extreme than (Dis)Advantage.

Right now short rests (where you spend your hit dice) take at least an hour, which makes resting when you're pressed for time (exploring a dungeon or enemy stronghold) pretty difficult.

Also I get the feeling that the 'Big 4' core classes (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard) are the most fleshed out and are probably the 'best' at this point.

 

[the Jester]

Since the play test is over. I'd suggest you just go play 1E or 2E instead. Its much more balanced, tested, and overall a better game.

If you insist on playing the play test, realize that it will take a master DM that can make things up as they go, know when to allow auto-success, auto-failure, and when to make the players roll for something.

I guess there were thousands of "master DMs" out there during the public playtest, then?

Seriously, I think that this is nonsense- 5e looks fine, plays fine, runs well (and fast and furious) and is not all that hard to adjudicate for anyone with a touch of judgment and common sense. At least, that's how my group found it.

The monsters are push overs. You will have to adjust.

This, on the other hand, is very true. You can either run 'em as is or turn them up a notch, but I wouldn't worry too much about it.

One thing you might want to do is include a "proficiency bonus" on attacks for some monsters, and maybe add a few hps here and there. Or just let it ride.

For instance kobolds will probably fall on the first hit no matter what, whereas an Ogre is probably going to take 10+ hits to drop.

When my group fought an ogre at 1st or 2nd level, they killed it in two rounds.

Watch out for save or die and save or suck spells and monsters, they are riddled throughout 5E. Keep in mind its no fun for a player to die and have to create a new character because they rolled low on a dice. If you use these, give plenty of warning and give a way to avoid the save. Players will use these effects often so don't get attached to a creature. If the players can see it, its fair game to kill it with a single spell or hit.

This is very much a matter of playstyle. Some groups love save or die; some hate it. Either way, I don't recall a ton of these kinds of effects in 5e, and most are "fail two saves and die", at least the last time I really went through the Bestiary.

 

[Lokiare]

Please do not pay attention to Lokiare's advice. You want to try D&D Next, so let's help you with that, shall we?

First, low level monsters can be easy to hit and kill. But heroes have limited hit points and resources as well. Tossing 7 goblins at a group means that at least 1 PC is going to take 3 points of damage, after which the group will have to determine whether they want to take a rest to heal up, use a spell, or just keep going. PCs can feel fragile too. That can build tension for the story. I say let them get some easy fights in to get used to the combat system. Maybe one or two tougher fights towards the end, to let them feel fear or a challenge.

Secondly, the game's action resolution system is based on "ability checks" not skill checks. The game wants to train you to use a certain vocabulary for making ability checks. You're encouraged to say "Make a strength check to jump over the ravine." or "Everyone, please Make a Wisdom Perception check." This tells people what the ability check is that they are supposed to make, and educates them about any proficiencies (skills, tools) that can help with that check.

It is not hard to determine if you want a player to make an ability check. If there is a penalty for failure, or if time is of the essence, or something is particularly hard, then sure, have them make an ability check. Otherwise, if success is inevitable over time, and there is no chance for failure, then just say they succeed and tell them what happens when they succeed. If it was a hard job, say that it took them a little time to succeed.

If they search a broad location, and something is hidden there, have them make a search check. If they say they want to search a specific location and there is something to find there (coins in a creature's spoor or on its body, a coffer under a bed, a secret door at the dead end of a hallway, then just let them find it. Reward them for interacting with the environment.

Read the How to Play document and DM Guidelines document. They are indeed helpful.

Don't be a slave to the numbers. If you make a fight too easy, add a complication to the mix (wandering monster or reinforcements or something). Or just let the heroes feel awesome with their butt-kicking. If you made it too hard, fudge some rolls, or make the enemies overly bold and spend actions to gloat, or have an ally or two leave to deliver messages to leaders.

Something that is helpful is to give a reason why the bad guys don't want to kill the heroes. Give the heroes a chance to use ingenuity to escape. Things like that. Later, when you and the players have more experience and the stakes are higher, you don't need to pull as many punches.

I have to get going, but that's my first bit of advice.

... have fun!

Sorry, the play test is over D&D: Next doesn't exist, and won't likely look anything like the play test (at least according to the developers). So really playing the play test materials is pointless at this time.

There is no arguing that 1E and 2E are better designed from monsters that are challenging, but not super deadly to dice rolls that make sense (ever been blinded, prone, and intoxicated in 5E? Yep you just have disadvantage once).

If you just want to see what the 5E play test was like, sure go play it, but you'll not be playing what will come out on shelves in summer 2014. That's just a fact.

They will also run into all the problems I and others listed. That's also a fact. You will have character's die because a 1st level monster got a lucky shot in. Your players will slaughter just about any monster they come in contact with (short of the cheat feeling super bosses, if those made it into the last play test packet).

Casters will dominate with spells (while never running out around 5th level or so). They will destroy your carefully designed boss monsters with a single spell (something around a 20% save chance to make the save or die save on the monsters part). They will get mad when you use a creature with a save or die effect to take them out of the game with a single roll. These are all just facts you have to deal with.

I suggest playing previous editions because they are better thought out. You get all the same deadliness with a better framework and with better ways to mitigate it (such as scaling save bonuses).

My Preferred edition is actually 4E, with 3.5E coming in second and 2E in third, but I assume they want to try 5E for the old school feel or for some of its features. Its much easier to house rule those features into 2E or 1E than it is to play 5E at this point. So my post stands. Either play another edition or wait for the game to come out. No point in playing the play test now...