D&D 5E Starter Set: Excerpt 4

[GravyFingerz]

Well, when you look at the benefit of 6-mile hexes (more precise) and the benefit of 5-mile hexes (more human-useable), it's clear why they went for 5.

How is a 5 mile hex more human usable?

 

[Paraxis]

Another reason I like 6 miles hexes, travel distances in an hour.

Average overland hiking speed roughly 3 miles per hour or 1 hex per 2 hours.

Average overland walking speed on flat road 6 miles per hour or 1 hex per hour.

 

[GX.Sigma]

How is a 5 mile hex more human usable?

It's easier to count multiples of five. Also, people tend to round things to multiples of five. Six-mile hexes make you round things to multiples of six, which is pretty awkward. "About 40 miles" and "About 42 miles" have different connotations in normal language.

 

[Plaguescarred]

+1 for hexes map!

Alao you can't go wrong with Mike Schley for your cartography!

 

[Lord Rasputin]

A vote for the five-mile hex. Five-across overlay hexes are much tidier than six. Regardless, however, so long as it's not a huge hex like a 12-mile hex, I'm totally cool. Now, if we can get rid of scripted adventures and get the bulk of XP from something other than killing ...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Now, if we can get rid of scripted adventures and get the bulk of XP from something other than killing ...

The former is pretty much up to how you run your game (I wouldn't expect WotC to publish adventures which were heavy sandbox, as opposed to partial sandbox, because, at least in my experience, most sandbox fans don't like to buy pre-done adventures). The latter may be an issue in 5E, depending on how the actual, final XP rules turn out. In the October playtest, there does seem to be an unfortunate reversion to a slightly strange way of handing out XP, which seems to hybridize 2E, 3E, and 4E XP methods, but in a somewhat regressive, rather than progressive, way.

Specifically it suggests the DM give out XP in three ways:

1) Direct monster killing XP. Contrary to 4E and even 3E iirc, there is absolutely no suggestion that you should award full or even partial XP for successful avoidance, bypassing, or neutralization of combat encounters. Only "killing, capture or routing" counts.

2) XP for non-combat encounters, only to be given out if there is "a significant chance of failure". This seems a little too encounter-oriented even for my 4E-loving self, and it ignores the possibility of the PCs managing to entirely bypass, short-circuit, or otherwise negate a planned non-combat encounter, without engaging with the "chance of failure".

3) Finally, it suggests optionally awarding XP for completing minor and major "objectives". Quest XP, as it were, something that has been around optionally since at least 2E.

Hopefully this is all due to it being the playtest, and once the Basic set gets it's DM bit, and the DMG comes out, there will be a more in-depth treatment of XP (I have no doubt whatsoever that the GP = XP rule will reappear as an option, whatever else happens or doesn't), with suggestions to award XP for bypassing combat and so on (failure to do so pushes D&D into a very "meta" or "computer game-y" place, where players push their PCs into combat solely for the XP, even when it makes little sense).

Personally I suspect my group will be back to the house rule we've been using since fairly early 3E, that being "You level up when the DM says you level up" (surveys here and elsewhere suggest this is surprisingly common). This works very well for campaign-oriented games, and ensures that the levelling pace is appropriate, but I can see campaign styles where it would be less preferable.

On the topic of the map, well, it's okay. Hex maps are good but I assumed were a given, so no special credit there. The art style is decent, but for me, it's not stunning. It is so extremely 3E-looking it actually gives me a feeling a bit like when I see someone wearing flares or something, which is not all good.

Also I am so disinterested in anything set in/near Neverwinter, personally, but that's probably just me.

 

[MerricB]

Anyone familiar with FR able to give a rundown of anything to note about the map, change-wise to the Realms?

The previously most recent map of this area would be that in the Neverwinter Campaign Setting (one of the best campaign books for D&D in any edition).

And that is the map used here! The new map overlays it with a hex grid, and has different labels on the text, but otherwise it is identical.

Link for DDi subscribers: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/downloads/galleries/neverwinter_art/img/3.jpg

Labels that have been added:
* Cragmaw Castle
* Agatha's Lair
* Icespire Peak
* Wave Echo Cave
* Phandalin
* Cragmaw's Hideout
* Starmetal Hills
* Kryptgarden Forest

A trail has been added between Leilon, Conyberry and Phandalin.

Labels that have been removed:
* "To Luskan"
* Morgur's Mound
* Tower of Twilight
* Sharandar
* Neverwinter River
* River Morgur
* Berun's River
* Edals Creek
* Xinlenal
* Helm's Hold
* Port Elast
* Dread Ring
* Sword Coast
* "To Waterdeep"

Cheers!

 

[Plaguescarred]

Thanks for the research and summary Merric!

 

[Mercurius]

Anyone familiar with FR able to give a rundown of anything to note about the map, change-wise to the Realms?

It looks like a strange yet pleasing hexagon-patterned grid has been fused or burned into the land as a result of the Sundering.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

As a Realms fan, I am really happy to see WotC using Mike Schley's maps. I still believe that one of the reasons the 4E version of the Realms was so poorly received was because the world map - and the smaller regional maps based on the world map - was an absolute piece of garbage with no artistic or game value and what minimal details it had were obscured by the "wipe a baby's bum across the page"-style, not to mention the manifold errors.

But Mike Schley's maps rock. Good move, WotC.