D&D 5E First experience with 5th edition and Lost Mines of Phandelver (no spoilers)

[Tony Vargas]

All this discussion makes me wonder about how WotC is targetting NewAgeGamers vs. PastCollectors. Seems interesting, but I lack Tony's energy to explain. XP all around for sharing your thoughts.

Is the New Age still new?

Seriously, though, I think 5e, the game - everything between the covers of the books, and quite a bit on-line - is firmly targeting long-time and returning fans. Most of the time, if I bother to look something up, it's very like what I expect to see. Often it's downright nostalgic. I can only imagine what it's like to someone returning from a 15-30 year hiatus from the hobby.

Organized play, OTOH, if focused attracting new as well as returning players. Though, with all due feigned humility, I believe we long-time fans are critical to retaining said players, by using our decades of DMing experience to run awesome 5e games.

 

[Bigkahuna]

All versions of D&D, even first edition had super natural and unrealistic powers that where by definition of the game "not magic" but had similiar or in many cases exactly the same effects as actual spells. 4e was not unique in this by any stretch of the imagination.

What 4e did was effectively take movie scenes and turn them in powers that could be executed, every martial power in the game you have seen enacted in a movie somewhere and in most cases it was not magical, it was simply cinematic. 4e was really good at giving characters the ability to act out interesting scenes within confines of the rules, but through vivid and very specific imagery. Something that in all editions of the game as players and GM's we strive for anyway, it was just done outside of the confines of the rules.

For example if you wanted to kick someone to stun them before you struck him with an axe, in 4e there was a very specific martial power that did that, to that description. In AD&D, 3rd or 5e, you might describe your action (stun kick) and the GM would be expected to find a way to resolve it, but within the confines of the rules you would be reaching for general rules like "the golden rule", "DM ruling power" or some general rule that covers stunning someone to define how that is resolved.

I think the issue was for many D&D players is that they believe (as I do) that the latter is much better. It opens up the game and doesn't require you to explain yourself when you do it. What I mean is that if their is a martial power (stun kick) in 4e that very specifically defines what it does, how it looks and what it is. If the mage tries it you are stuck in a wierd place because kicking someone before striking them with an axe isn't really a power, its something anyone could try. Rage, Favored Enemy, Divine Smite... those were powers. 4e had too many mundane things it considered "powers" which were really just a combination of actions I would expect anyone to be able to take. The issue you ran into was when someone actually did. For example a mage tries to kick a guy to stun him and then smack him with an axe. Perfectly reasonable and your stuck with this wierd resolution, do you resolve it as the Martial Power, or do you "GM invent it" because there aren't any specific rules that handle that sort of thing other than "rule zero". At which point you have to ask does the world really make sense now... is the Fighters a magical stunning foot? Is he stronger? What if the mage has a strength of 17? Is he better trained at stun kicking people.. .is that really a thing?

For me this is kind of the place where 4e kind of fell apart, in particular when you layered it with all this tactical movement shifting all the time. It created bizarre scenes that didn't really have a sense of place or logic even in a fantasy world with magical spells and dragons.

It just didn't work and I think this is one of the many elements of 4e that lead to its wide scaled rejection from the player base. Its not so much that it was a bad system but between 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition, we kind of had this figured out already, it really didn't need to be re-invented.

Its worth saying to that 5th edition in particular handles "invented actions" better than any D&D system before it. You have the advantage system, skills, proficiencies and feats. You can always explain things logically by pulling from those resources during a session and I love that. In partiuclar the advantage/disadvantage system... I love it so much, so simple, yet such a powerful roleplaying tool.

 

[Imaculata]

Its worth saying to that 5th edition in particular handles "invented actions" better than any D&D system before it. You have the advantage system, skills, proficiencies and feats.

All of which existed in 3rd edition.... so why does it handle "invented actions", better?

You can always explain things logically by pulling from those resources during a session and I love that. In partiuclar the advantage/disadvantage system... I love it so much, so simple, yet such a powerful roleplaying tool.

But is the advantage/disadvantage anything more than a simplified version of 3rd edition's +1/-1 system?

 

[Imaculata]

(Argh, double post. Why does the website tell me the message wasn't posted, when in fact it was?)

 

[ChrisCarlson]

All of which existed in 3rd edition.... so why does it handle "invented actions", better?

You seem to be implying that it does not? If so, please elaborate on why you think that is.

But is the advantage/disadvantage anything more than a simplified version of 3rd edition's +1/-1 system?

It is not. In case you are not familiar, here are just three big differences off the top of my head:

• Adv/Disad does not actually alter a potential check's minimum or maximum attainable values. Only the likelihood of reaching them.
• Using +1/-1 systems do not alter the chances of rolling natural 20s or 1s.
• Fixed bonuses remain constant, whereas Adv/Disad has a sliding scale of "value" going into a check based on initial probabilities.

In all three of these cases, the systems are completely different. And I am not claiming this is even an exhaustive list. There are likely more.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For example if you wanted to kick someone to stun them before you struck him with an axe, in 4e there was a very specific martial power that did that, to that description. What I mean is that if their is a martial power (stun kick) in 4e that very specifically defines what it does, how it looks and what it is.

Actually it only really defined what it did, how it was resolved, and what keywords it had. How it looked (and thus, 'what it was' to an extent) was very much open to re-skinning, even by the player.

In AD&D, 3rd or 5e, you might describe your action (stun kick) and the GM would be expected to find a way to resolve it, but within the confines of the rules you would be reaching for general rules like "the golden rule", "DM ruling power" or some general rule that covers stunning someone to define how that is resolved.

In 1e AD&D you could make an unarmed 'pummeling' attack (though against an armed opponent it was dangerous and likely to fail), and stunning an enemy was a possible result - not likely, but possible. In 3e, your fighter would take the Improved Unarmed Strike and Stunning Fist feats and would need to be able to attack more than once, if he wanted to stun someone with a 'kick' (unarmed strike in 3e) before attacking them with a weapon. In 5e a fighter wanting to do the same could take 5e levels of Monk to get Stunning Strike. Of course, that 5th-level Monk ability is explicitly magical, since it uses a Ki point.

All of which existed in 3rd edition.... so why does it handle "invented actions", better?

Or 2e. No system really /does/ "invented actions," unless it actually provides some helpful/meaningful guidelines to the DM to use in adjudicating such actions. What 5e, does do, though, is require DM rulings to resolve most actions, so when a player 'invents' an action, the DMing having to step in and make a ruling in order to resolve it doesn't stand out from the usual sequence of play. Part of the whole DM Empowerment, thing, really.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

What 5e, does do, though, is require DM rulings to resolve most actions, so when a player 'invents' an action, the DMing having to step in and make a ruling in order to resolve it doesn't stand out from the usual sequence of play. Part of the whole DM Empowerment, thing, really.

I think that's a good way of getting to the heart of the matter. If a system has most sorts of actions highly codified with specific class or other features (such as feats) telling you when/if/how you can do them, and exactly what bonuses they provide, then it subtly discourages players and DMs from improvising. There is a thin line in player perception between "Here is how you do this" and "This is the only way to do this."

Since 5e has less codification, and not only encourage improvisation, but by virtue of lacking codified methods of doing things actually demands it, it is simply going to come up a lot more in play. As far as the system itself, advantage/disadvantage in some way fills the same roll as the +2/-2 arbitrary DM's best friend from prior editions, but unlike in prior editions where a DM might sit there and think, "is this really a +2? Or is it more like a +3 or +4?", advantage doesn't give you that option. It's one size fit all. In addition, it's generally easier to accomplish improvised things (or even standard things like grappling) in 5e than in prior versions. Most improvised actions are just a DC X ability check (or maybe attack roll), or an opposed ability check. That's pretty much it. None of that "First, is this a cool thing? If yes, provoke an attack of opportunity. Then take a -4 penalty on..."

Now, some people don't like any of those things (lack of codified options, one-size fits all arbitrary improvisation modifiers, simplified and easier improvisational action attempts) but they do make improvisation much more common and encouraged within 5e than in prior recent editions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think that's a good way of getting to the heart of the matter. If a system has most sorts of actions highly codified with specific class or other features (such as feats) telling you when/if/how you can do them, and exactly what bonuses they provide, then it subtly discourages players and DMs from improvising. There is a thin line in player perception between "Here is how you do this" and "This is the only way to do this."

That's become something of treasured myth in the community, but it's not that one-sided. A system that provides you more options is simply going to leave fewer options that require improvisation, so you'll need to improvise less often. A system that provides you with good, or even merely viable options, is not going to leave you desperate enough to try the hail-mary that often.

Less need is less need, not subtle discouragement. Desperation is desperation, not encouragement. ;P

What 5e does is not so much encourage (subtly or otherwise) improvisation, as it puts more latitude in the hands of the DM whether the player improvises or not. Whether that encourages improvisation on the part of the player depends on how the DM tends to handle it.

Since 5e has less codification

Actually, 5e has a lot of codification in some areas, particularly when it comes to spells, and spell mechanics get used and re-used a lot, with every class referencing them in some way. Spells have always been codified in D&D - yet, IMX, magic-users have always done the most improvising and out-of-the-box tricks, because spells, though codified, do a much wider range of things than can be accomplished without magic, offering more starting points to riff off of.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

No system really does "invented actions," unless it actually provides some helpful/meaningful guidelines to the DM to use in adjudicating such actions.

That's an interesting term.

IMO the current D&D systems for "inventing actions":
- Make it a spell
- Use skill challenges that need lots of preplanning
- Assign a CR to it using a circular-dependent algorithm
- Create random table and roll on the table
- Ask the DM \_(ツ)_/
- Copy-Paste a similar action and adjust

Only the last two are viable in-game with short notice.

Did I miss any other " invented action" systems in D&D?

EDIT: Guess I missed skills in general. Those could work in one-off actions, but repeatable actions will need more planning.

 

[dave2008]

With 5E you have the option of playing a class that does not require justification of "it's supernatural". As in, could possibly be a replication of something that could happen in real life (or in an action-movie setting anyway).

Anyway, this is going nowhere. Good gaming.

Have you ever tried to swing a 3lbs sword 8 times in 6 seconds - that is supernatural!