D&D 5E 5th ed D&D general impressions from a new player and DM.

[prabe]

I chalk it up to 4e backlash. 4e was very transparent with its underlying systems and how the math behind them worked and why. And a lot of folks didn’t like that. So with 5e, they went the other way.

As I understand it, a lot of folks didn't like a lot of things about 4E. It's a pity they tossed this particular baby out with the bathwater.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Just like starting with a 16 in your primary ability and increasing to 18 and 20 at levels 4 and 8, just like getting +1, +2, and +3 weapons at levels 5, 11, and 17.

Typical Monster ACs don't increase by 11 points as you go from level 1 to 20. There are CR 1 monsters with AC 18, and no monsters have an AC of 29. In my experience, the game works just fine if you start with +2 in your main ability and use the points somewhere else useful, and if you cap at 18 and take feats or other ASIs instead. Nor does a high-level warrior need a +3 sword; a +0 Flame Tongue with +2d6 damage will do just fine. Even if he has an utterly uninteresting +1 sword, if he's scored a suit of Armor of Invulnerability and an Arrow-Catching Shield instead, he'll be no less unstoppable..

 

[fearsomepirate]

Personally I usually have 5-10 encounters between long rests*, a couple other people in my game also DM and they've mentioned how much it changes the feel of the game (for the better) and that they now use it in their own game.

I find it works better to balance the different classes out, throw in a short rest or two and classes with short rest options also have a chance to shine.

*The 6-8 is medium-to-hard encounters.

I find it utterly impossible to stop my players from treating every 5' movement or quaff of a potion as a committee decision. 5-8 encounters per adventuring day would mean that we start a campaign in January, and in May, we're on the 2nd adventuring day. Maybe. If we move fast.

I try to do 1-2 really brutal encounters per day, basically squash those 6-8 together.

 

[Charlaquin]

Typical Monster ACs don't increase by 11 points as you go from level 1 to 20.

Statistical analysis of the monster manual says different.

There are CR 1 monsters with AC 18, and no monsters have an AC of 29.

Yes, there are monsters that deviate from the mean AC for their CR. But on average getting those boosts at those levels keeps you up with the 65% accuracy against single level-appropriate monsters.

In my experience, the game works just fine if you start with +2 in your main ability and use the points somewhere else useful, and if you cap at 18 and take feats or other ASIs instead. Nor does a high-level warrior need a +3 sword; a +0 Flame Tongue with +2d6 damage will do just fine. Even if he has an utterly uninteresting +1 sword, if he's scored a suit of Armor of Invulnerability and an Arrow-Catching Shield instead, he'll be no less unstoppable..

If you think I’ve been saying you need these stats at these levels or that the game doesn’t work right if you don’t get them, you haven’t been paying attention. Literally in all of these posts I have sad the opposite. These numbers are an underlying assumption of the system math, not a requirement for the game to run properly.

 

[Oofta]

I find it utterly impossible to stop my players from treating every 5' movement or quaff of a potion as a committee decision. 5-8 encounters per adventuring day would mean that we start a campaign in January, and in May, we're on the 2nd adventuring day. Maybe. If we move fast.

I try to do 1-2 really brutal encounters per day, basically squash those 6-8 together.

Yeah, I've had those players as well. For my current group, they almost never get a long rest at the end of a gaming session. That may not work for everyone obviously, but I just have people keep track of where they were at the end of the session and we pick up where we left off. It's a little easier because we all use DndBeyond and you can track things there; if it was really an issue I guess I could create a log sheet and keep it for them I guess.

I've tried a few things to speed up play, basically reminding them that they don't really have much time and at a certain point I simply cut off discussion that is anything other than clarifying the scene. Of course that doesn't help if you have "the analyzer" who wants to treat every turn trying to analyze every possibility. Especially when it always ends with them spending 10 minutes staring at the miniatures and then throwing up their hands and saying "I guess I'll just ..." and then taking the most obvious solution.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, I've had those players as well. For my current group, they almost never get a long rest at the end of a gaming session. That may not work for everyone obviously, but I just have people keep track of where they were at the end of the session and we pick up where we left off. It's a little easier because we all use DndBeyond and you can track things there; if it was really an issue I guess I could create a log sheet and keep it for them I guess.

I've tried a few things to speed up play, basically reminding them that they don't really have much time and at a certain point I simply cut off discussion that is anything other than clarifying the scene. Of course that doesn't help if you have "the analyzer" who wants to treat every turn trying to analyze every possibility. Especially when it always ends with them spending 10 minutes staring at the miniatures and then throwing up their hands and saying "I guess I'll just ..." and then taking the most obvious solution.

Yeah, with these sorts of players, you either have to be willing to give them a time limit and say they lose their turn if they don’t act within that time limit, or accept that combats are going to be slow.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, with these sorts of players, you either have to be willing to give them a time limit and say they lose their turn if they don’t act within that time limit, or accept that combats are going to be slow.

Yeah, there's not always a good answer. I want to allow people to play however they want, but there is a limit.

Some things you can fix - like the guy who had a hard time adding up numbers in his head. We worked out a quick sheet for him that pre-added his attack roll so he just had to look up the number. Then we let him use average damage (he was a fighter). Other things? I mean, the analyzer guy was really smart he just thought every turn should be "optimal".

 

[fearsomepirate]

Statistical analysis of the monster manual says different.

At CR 1 (medium encounter for 4 1st-level characters), the average AC looks to be about 13. At CR 20 (i.e. a medium encounter for 4 20th-level characters), the average AC is a bit below 20. That's a 20-level spread of 7, not 11.

 

[DND_Reborn]

At CR 1 (medium encounter for 4 1st-level characters), the average AC looks to be about 13. At CR 20 (i.e. a medium encounter for 4 20th-level characters), the average AC is a bit below 20. That's a 20-level spread of 7, not 11.

My own analysis of AC by tier (considering which monsters below to which tier) yielded roughly the following:

Tier 1: average AC 13
Tier 2: average AC 15
Tier 3: average AC 17
Tier 4: average AC 19

I don't have the spreadsheet anymore, but it included the MM, VGtM, and MToF, plus some extras from adventure modules and settings books.

If you consider, in their main "thing" PCs are typically +5, +7, +9, and +11 in their attack bonuses (discarding magic items and features) at each tier, respectively, (due to ASI and/or proficiency increase), this holds that an 8 or better is typically needed to hit, or 65%, across all tiers in 5E.

So, that is why I assume a 65% hit probability.

 

[JimmyG]

Here‘s the PDF of Iserith’s guide I made a while back for my own use

Thanks. Just read through it.

Frankly, it sort of sucks I think and doesn't describe any kind of real play I've see or been part of.

Anyway, thanks for posting.