D&D 5E 5E and CaS/CaW - Conclusions?

[Savage Wombat]

I've just reread the almost year-old thread on Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...s-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles

Now, of course, we've seen a year's worth of playtest documents on 5th edition, and people have begun to form opinions on the final product's shape.

How do you feel the playtest rules support both styles of gaming? Does it favor one, ignore one, or support both?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I believe that it supports CaW better than both 3e and 4e. The monsters are easier to kill so it feels less like cheating when the players use CaW tactics to defeat monsters. Also, monsters are useable across more levels so it better supports various enemies used in various numbers as encounters. Both 3e and 4e were very carefully balanced in their encounters so adding another monster or allowing the PCs to defeat a monster too easily could completely change the feel of a combat.

I think it might do CaS a little worse since when playing in this style you want to put more focus on a battle as a set piece and immerse yourself in the details of that battle. Monsters have less abilities and their hitpoints don't lend them to hanging around very long. Though it might be easier to do CaS with scores and scores of enemies.

 

[Gadget]

I have always felt that CaW relied much more heavily on the social contract and player/DM interactions than the actual hard-coded rules. As such, less detailed and proscribed combat rules and abilities seem to favor this play style more as they 'get out of the way' more easily and let the DM make judgment calls. As such, It looks like base 5e will be able to support this style better than the other WOTC editions have out of the box with its quicker combat and ability to focus on the other two pillars of the game besides combat. However, as more complex options, module and dials are added to the game (or opted into), it will become more difficult to achieve, successfully.

 

[Rhenny]

I think Next best serves Combat as War in its core rules. In our experiences, players should fear combats against greater numbers and if a party is surprised, or too many pcs lose initiative when an encounter begins, the difficulty of the combat, even an easy one grows noticeably. This seems to make it feel more like war because there is potential for disaster in any conflict (especially at lower levels).

In most of my games, the players are very wary of charging headlong into a conflict just for sport. I think the mechanics contribute to this, but it may just be that they just like playing that way.

 

[Teataine]

The core rules are definitely leaning towards CaW, I'd say.

However, if you decide to use a stricter encounter building budget (optional) and stricter magic item regimen (optional) and combine it with the (yet unseen, and also optional) tactical combat module, I think you might actually have something that supports CaS to a degree.

Hit Dice provide "refreshers" between battles, and lots of abilities are basically "encounter-based". This means that the party's power is more or less predictable/even throughout an adventuring day (with the exception of daily nukes/spells). And if the tactical module is anything like they're promising it will be, I think combat will be more reminescent of 4E than 3E. Although definitely with less interesting monster abilities.

 

[KidSnide]

I think Next best serves Combat as War in its core rules. In our experiences, players should fear combats against greater numbers and if a party is surprised, or too many pcs lose initiative when an encounter begins, the difficulty of the combat, even an easy one grows noticeably. This seems to make it feel more like war because there is potential for disaster in any conflict (especially at lower levels).

Agreed.

And just as significantly, PCs can defeat significantly more powerful opponents if they are able to get into an advantageous situation. Let me tell you, when the PCs are able to get surprise and attack from hiding, it's huge. Not only do the PCs effectively get a free round of attacks, but attacking from hiding / invisibility means that those attacks are made with advantage. A difficult challenge can turn quickly trivial if the PCs are able to kill spellcasters (and any other glass cannons) before they go. Likewise, a challenge that would be simply beyond the party can become a tough-but-doable fight with the right preparation.

-KS