D&D 5E Goodman Games What's coming down the Pike for 5e.

[TerraDave]

Where did this tangent come from?

4e was built around one big fight after another. Number of rounds and viable combat options for low to mid-level characters--and I think these were linked--were much higher than in other editions. I don't think it was thinking time--3e was the worst for that.

A main tell was that many fans of 4e early on adopted the house rule that monster hp was cut in half, and monster damage was doubled. Then they said it worked great--but the players will have options on their sheets that just sit there.

But anyways, cool Goodman Game products for 5E are on their way!

 

[Retreater]

4e combats dragged because enemies had too many HP and didn't do enough damage. Even if you knew exactly what you want to do on your turn, you still have to widdle down 1500 HP doing 10 damage a turn (only barely exaggerating).

 

[dave2008]

Where did this tangent come from?

I know - it is strange how things happen. This will be the last I talk of it.

4e was built around one big fight after another. Number of rounds and viable combat options for low to mid-level characters--and I think these were linked--were much higher than in other editions. I don't think it was thinking time--3e was the worst for that.

Number of viable options has an adverse affect on thinking time, at least that was my experience. Though I disagree it was one big fight after another. Maybe it was in published adventures, but it was not how I DM'd 4e.

A main tell was that many fans of 4e early on adopted the house rule that monster hp was cut in half, and monster damage was doubled. Then they said it worked great--but the players will have options on their sheets that just sit there.

Monster damage was to low, and I adjusted that based on the DMG42 calculations. However, that is not about time as much as making 4e monsters more dangerous.

However, I do know people did use the solution you suggest. Half HP was to make the game faster and 2x damage was to balance the monster threat with the reduced HP. It was a good simple solution for those who didn't have other means of solving the issue. If 4e monsters had been designed that way, the game would have run faster. Notice that is not an issue of PC balance, which is the issue that started this tangent.

But anyways, cool Goodman Game products for 5E are on their way!

Yes!

4e combats dragged because enemies had too many HP and didn't do enough damage. Even if you knew exactly what you want to do on your turn, you still have to widdle down 1500 HP doing 10 damage a turn (only barely exaggerating).

Yes and no. I agree that was an issue for some/many and TerraDave's solution was a quick and easy solution for that. The game would probably have been more successful if it had started with that solution.

However, if you visited the old 4e optimization boards you know it was possible for 4e characters to do enormous damage. A group of such players could easily take down 1500 HP in 3 rounds or less. I had more of a hard time design monsters that could last 3 rounds than had to many HP. There was quite a large range between a casual player/group and an optimized one.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I would never have thought to put time limits on turn taking: though honestly, in 5E as in 3E in my experience, turns organically take less than 30 seconds except for dire circumstances, anyways?

I only drop the timer when someone didn't prepare. Meaning, player could have spent the time while everyone else was going to plan their move... but didn't and instead when they're turn arrives starts going "Hmmmm... what should I do?" and spends way more time as they go through all the available options.

Super annoying, and IMO disrespectful to other players. I get some decision making "I'm thinking of doing this or this," but when a player decides to scroll their phone instead of thinking of their turn while others are going, I'm dropping that timer. Can't make a decision, then we move on.

 

[overgeeked]

I only drop the timer when someone didn't prepare. Meaning, player could have spent the time while everyone else was going to plan their move... but didn't and instead when they're turn arrives starts going "Hmmmm... what should I do?" and spends way more time as they go through all the available options.

Super annoying, and IMO disrespectful to other players. I get some decision making "I'm thinking of doing this or this," but when a player decides to scroll their phone instead of thinking of their turn while others are going, I'm dropping that timer. Can't make a decision, then we move on.

The other option is to skip them immediately and check back in after each later player in the initiative order goes. If you get to the end and they still haven't a clue...they lose their turn. Now they have that much more time to decide.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

The other option is to skip them immediately and check back in after each later player in the initiative order goes. If you get to the end and they still haven't a clue...they lose their turn. Now they have that much more time to decide.

This would probably make them more mad to be honest... they'd think "You didn't even give me a chance to think of what to do!" and feel they need to start over because their initiative order changed (which does matter a lot).

I actually do love the "timer" as I set it for one minute, and just its presence makes people decide on what to do way faster. No one ever actually runs out of time and has their turn skipped.

 

[overgeeked]

This would probably make them more mad to be honest... they'd think "You didn't even give me a chance to think of what to do!"

Weird. I always thought having objectively more time to think would mean they'd have more time to think. Guess that's me.

feel they need to start over because their initiative order changed (which does matter a lot).

Well, it sounds like they're just indecisive then. Or think that there's some perfect winning move they must discover and perform. That's not remotely true, nor is changing initiative order that important outside of very limited edge cases.

I actually do love the "timer" as I set it for one minute, and just its presence makes people decide on what to do way faster. No one ever actually runs out of time and has their turn skipped.

And that's how my version plays out at the table. People are incentivized to decide faster, so they do. If they need more time, they get it, but if they simply cannot decide, they lose their turn...only without the added pressure of a physical timer. Works wonders without the added stress. But, to each their own.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Weird. I always thought having objectively more time to think would mean they'd have more time to think. Guess that's me.

You're right, they would. But a delayed turn I think is not as bad a punishment as a timer appearing (IMO), so I think players would dislike this more.

Well, it sounds like they're just indecisive then. Or think that there's some perfect winning move they must discover and perform. That's not remotely true, nor is changing initiative order that important outside of very limited edge cases.

Mix of indecisive-ness and finding the perfect winning move (the two are kind of the same actually). I agree it's not important really to change initiative, but players will perceive it as a punishment. Especially if they had a high initiative.

And that's how my version plays out at the table. People are incentivized to decide faster, so they do. If they need more time, they get it, but if they simply cannot decide, they lose their turn...only without the added pressure of a physical timer. Works wonders without the added stress. But, to each their own.

I don't mean to quibble, but you've got it reversed. Players are dis-incentivized to take longer in this system. That may sound like the same thing as "incentivized to decide faster" but it's not. There's not reward for deciding fast beyond getting what you already had (your turn in initiative). There is a punishment for not deciding fast.

Anyway, I don't really think your way is that worse, I just find the timer is an added element that doesn't actually change the game (because no one ever fails to make a decision before the timer). I almost never bring it out anyway anymore as by now they know to make decisions fast.

 

[overgeeked]

You're right, they would. But a delayed turn I think is not as bad a punishment as a timer appearing (IMO), so I think players would dislike this more.

Maybe that’s the difference. I’m not out to punish my players. Only keep the game from stalling.

Mix of indecisive-ness and finding the perfect winning move (the two are kind of the same actually).

Not really. For some, maybe. For others it’s honest analysis paralysis from the nature of RPGs. Being able to try anything is a lot.

I agree it's not important really to change initiative, but players will perceive it as a punishment. Especially if they had a high initiative.

Eh. So they can decide quick or lose it. Their choice.

I don't mean to quibble, but you've got it reversed. Players are dis-incentivized to take longer in this system. That may sound like the same thing as "incentivized to decide faster" but it's not. There's not reward for deciding fast beyond getting what you already had (your turn in initiative). There is a punishment for not deciding fast.

Anyway, I don't really think your way is that worse, I just find the timer is an added element that doesn't actually change the game (because no one ever fails to make a decision before the timer). I almost never bring it out anyway anymore as by now they know to make decisions fast.

And I have players who would pack up and leave if I had an egg timer running while they took their turn. It takes all kinds.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Slow players? Give one of them "The Sword of Speed." If every players' last turn was one minute or less, this sword deals an extra D12 times the number of players on the next melee attack.