D&D 5E 2/4/2013 L&L:A Change in Format

[Yora]

The exploration rules sound intriguing. I hope we don't have to wait months for the next packet to see them.

Updates have been about 1 per month for quite some time now, and the last update really was only the new barbarian class, so I expect the next full update quite soon.

 

[delericho]

I daresay this is what they will do. I think what Mearls is saying is that he wants to give official support and advice (not unlike Chris Perkins' column on map-making) for that particular playstyle, given that TSR never did, and WotC has been pretty wedded to the battlemat.

Yep. I'd be fine with that.

Though if they could phrase it a bit better than the 4e DMG, that would be welcome, too.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is hard to form an opinion based on the hints in this column, but these don't sound like the kinds of exploration rules I would use. Seems like they are imbedding a lot of style and preference issues (for example the gm doing the mapping) into the mechanics. I think loose procedures with clear explanations can be good, but something about this reminds me when they first started talking about skill challenges. Maybe I am wrong though.

 

[Grimmjow]

he said they may tone down the barbarian's damage, is that a big issue though? barbarians dont get to many abilities. Rage and reckless strike. other then that everything pretty much improves the barbarian's rage while the fighter gets a wealth of maneuvers. So a little damage boost from the barbarian makes sense in my head

 

[Ratskinner]

Tentatively excited about these new exploration rules. I'm not so sure about the whole "DM draws the map" thing - classic materials (including the 1e DMG, B1, and B2) very strongly advised DMs not to help the players with the mapping. I'm skeptical of anything that goes directly against the intentions of the original designers. Still, the system seems like just what I want, so I'll give it a go.

Nice to hear about the mass combat rules.

I've had good luck with dungeon-crawley adventures by printing the bits of the map to scale on cardstock, cutting out "zones" and then handing out the zones as they discover them. I even had a part of a Kruthik nest with all sorts of twisting tunnel bits that were only revealed as PCs rounded corners. It can get a bit expensive, but if you leave them a fairly abstract, you can re-use them a lot. As a bonus, its pretty easy to craft a basic set of Cardstock "blocks" that can support the weight of character minis while representing 3d terrain! As a bonus bonus, you can even pick a smaller scale and print tiny "minis" or markers to move around, fitting large battlefields on your table more easily.

I recommend Inkscape, if you need a FOSS bit of software to help produce the map bits.

 

[Libramarian]

He keeps saying Steading of the Hill Giant Chieftain...is this G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief or something different?

I really liked his comments on the low prep time of old school sandbox adventures. That's very true. When I was running AD&D modules last year my prep to play ratio was like 1:10.

I don't like the idea of the DM drawing out the map for the players at all. That's going to feel pretty redundant, especially if the DM is running their own adventure and has already drawn the map once. I think if the players don't like mapping they should be allowed to make an abbreviated zone and line-style map, and if they're still not into it then the DM should just show them the map piece by piece instead of drawing it out again.

 

[pemerton]

I think if the players don't like mapping they should be allowed to make an abbreviated zone and line-style map

To the extent that my players map (not very often, these days) they do "zone and line". But it's never occurred to me that permission has to be granted! Do you regard full-fledged grid mapping as compulsory in classic D&D?

Related question: in classic D&D there's a pretty strong implication that the player drawing the map is also a PC, in game, drawing a map (and if that PC is lost, the GM can confiscate the map!). Do you think this approach is inherent to classic play? I've always tended to regard the players' map as more of a meta-thing, a substitute for perception and memory.

 

[Falling Icicle]

he said they may tone down the barbarian's damage, is that a big issue though? barbarians dont get to many abilities. Rage and reckless strike. other then that everything pretty much improves the barbarian's rage while the fighter gets a wealth of maneuvers. So a little damage boost from the barbarian makes sense in my head

All martial classes are doing too much damage right now, so expect to see them all get toned down, not just the barbarian.

 

[Grimmjow]

All martial classes are doing too much damage right now, so expect to see them all get toned down, not just the barbarian.

oh i know this but that the barbarian and such will get toned down but the barbarian doesnt need to be doing the same average damage as the fighter

 

[MerricB]

Tentatively excited about these new exploration rules. I'm not so sure about the whole "DM draws the map" thing - classic materials (including the 1e DMG, B1, and B2) very strongly advised DMs not to help the players with the mapping. I'm skeptical of anything that goes directly against the intentions of the original designers.

The original designers didn't always do good design work, though. A lot of their assumptions don't apply today, or were bad even back then. Consider ideas like the "Caller", which has fallen by the wayside - it made sense for certain groups, but rarely applies now.

Intense mapping by players has problems. At its worst, the game turns into a discussion between the DM and the mapper, while the other players wait for something interesting to happen. In some dungeons, it turns into mapping lots of empty rooms before finally getting into a fight. I was running a 4e conversion of Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure last Friday, and that's exactly what happened: the encounter count was very low compared to all the confusing passages and rooms the group had to go through, and so the mapper got to do stuff while the others waited around.

Running Isle of Dread last year for my AD&D game was slightly more bearable, but did lapse into intense boredom as I'd say, "You go northwest. To the northwest are mountains; to the east is forest; to the north-west a river runs through a chasm" again and again and we'd have to pause for the mapper to mark that down. This was a game with eight players, so the conversation really was between one mapper and the DM while the other players sat back and waited.

It should also be noted that the advice in those early products was strongly slanted towards adventures in "megadungeons" and areas where adversarial DMing was pretty much a thing. The game is a lot broader than that today.

I would like the older style to remain as an option, but in general I'm in agreement with Mike's position.

Cheers!