D&D 5E 5E and Sense of Accomplishment

[Blackbrrd]

I have felt this too. That's why I have generally given the monsters in my games more hit points. It will be a real balancing act to find the sweet spot for the more fearsome monsters - and this might be a trade-off that all DMs will have to deal with depending on how fast they want their combats to play.

I do like that it is something that can be adjusted though...perhaps guidelines in DMG could help too.

I maxed out the hp of monsters in 2e and 3e instead of using the "rolled average", except for some monsters like Dragons. Those used their superior senses to put up defensive spells in advance. It made combat take maybe 3 rounds instead of 2 rounds.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I agree with this. However, Interupts that only do damage or affect a roll are not a real problem IMO (and they make combat more fluid and realistic). However, effects that control the movement of others can be an issue. I find that fighters can really slow combats down.

I certainly agree that many 3rd and 4th ed feats/powers/spells with small effects were contributors to slowing down the resolution of combat.

I still think the biggest issue with 4th ed fights is that monsters have too many hit points compared to damage that PCs do. Unless the PCs use dailies, action points and (most importantly) get crits, combats can really drag on. Effects like weakness and creatures being insubstantial can also exacerbate this problem.

From the 4e campaign I am playing in now, I think the biggest problem is how much better AoE powers are than single target attacks. At level 13, with an encounter power and a really good hit, a single target attack from the Warlock in the party did 59 damage. My Wizard did 4x(36+10) = 184 damage. The difference in damage is often around 1W or maybe 1d8. That doesn't matter when the static modifier to damage is 22.

If you have players that don't optimize their characters for multiple targets they will do significantly less damage. You also have the problem that it's really easy to make ineffecient characters in 4e. Typically they do something like 30-70% of the damage an efficient character would do. (An optimized character easily does 2x that of an efficient character, but it quickly becomes very cheesy). My current party has 4 inefficient characters, and one efficient. Two of them are at maybe 30-40%, the other two at maybe 60-70% efficiency compared to the efficient one. They have greater survivability, but the difference in damage output is just huge and makes combat drag on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

From the 4e campaign I am playing in now, I think the biggest problem is how much better AoE powers are than single target attacks. At level 13, with an encounter power and a really good hit, a single target attack from the Warlock in the party did 59 damage. My Wizard did 4x(36+10) = 184 damage. The difference in damage is often around 1W or maybe 1d8. That doesn't matter when the static modifier to damage is 22.

If you have players that don't optimize their characters for multiple targets they will do significantly less damage. You also have the problem that it's really easy to make ineffecient characters in 4e. Typically they do something like 30-70% of the damage an efficient character would do. (An optimized character easily does 2x that of an efficient character, but it quickly becomes very cheesy). My current party has 4 inefficient characters, and one efficient. Two of them are at maybe 30-40%, the other two at maybe 60-70% efficiency compared to the efficient one. They have greater survivability, but the difference in damage output is just huge and makes combat drag on.

This isn't the thread for a detailed discussion of it, but as a point of order, from a long-time 4E DM, basically everything Blackbrrd is saying here is either outright untrue or at least severely misleading. In brief:

1) Contrary to the apparent assertion, AoE in 4E is the weakest AoE in the history of D&D by a vast margin.
2) Damage-centric AoE in 4E is only valuable in certain specific encounter designs. Which apparently Blackbrrd's DM loves, but which are not "how it is". (Control-centric AoE has wider applications)
3) Spammable AoE does far less damage than Blackbrrd suggests, in practice, unless your DM is playing bizarrely and stacking monsters for you (you are not going to hit 4 non-minion monsters with a spammable AoE with any regularity in a normal campaign). His damage comparisons thus appear to be between Encounter or Daily AoE and At-Will Single-Target. Which is very misleading.
4) You don't have to kill every enemy to win combats in 4E, any more than other editions, unless your DM is treating things like a computer game - the whole "OMG AOE4EVER" fallacy relies on this silly business.
5) The levels of optimization discussed are vague and nonsensical, but even if we believe them, that is still BY FAR the best situation in any modern edition of D&D (i.e. 3.XE or later)! So the complaints here ring very false!
6) Combats only "drag on" if your DM insists you have to grind down every last enemy, and insists on throwing big, HP-heavy encounters at parties he knows the party aren't good at handling them.*

4E has tons of problems (much as I may like it), and combat taking too long can be one of them, but that has nothing to do with "optimized vs unoptimized", and this stuff about AoE is just laughable nonsense (and entirely specific to Blackbrrd's DM, I suspect).

* = I totally understand the preference of some people for "hard-static" encounter design and so on, but 4E is not designed on those assumptions, and a DM who tries to run it like it is will experience problems, just as one would trying to run 2E is a skill-centric game and so on (it's not impossible, but you're fighting the system either way).

EDIT - I should mitigate this criticism by pointing out that Blackbrrd DOES say "In the 4E campaign I am in...", so whilst his language seems to be more absolute/sweeping about 4E, he is being specific there. If he was in my campaign, I can assure you that he would not have the same opinion on the value of damage-centric AoE spells.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Word on the steet is that with 5E, encounters tend to run quicker, and groups can accomplish a-- for lack of a better word-- longer story in the same amount of time. For those of you who have done a lot of 5E playtesting, do you get a sense of accomplishment out of the game? Do you get the same sense of accomplishment (or more, or less) from an individual encounter? What about, say, a 4 hour session?

Am I even making any sense?

Chad

Yes, actually, and based on my group's 5E playtesting (admittedly most of it from the early playtest stages, but if anything, the game was moving further away from tactical combat as it went on, it seemed), the simple answer is no, the players do not get the same sense of accomplishment as they do from 3.XE/4E.

However, that's not necessarily the end of the world, because you have more time for other things, many of which players love just as much.

In 2E and similar editions (which I played and ran since 2E came out), the only real combat-related "sense of accomplishment" tended to come from one of two things:

1) We totally ambushed those dudes, they didn't stand a chance! - The accomplishment was entirely from the preparation, essentially, with little from the execution. Still, people loved it. Unfortunately due to the way 2E worked, 90% of the accomplishment tended to be due to the Wizard, Magic Items and Cleric, in that order (simply a mechanical issue).

2) "HOLY HELLS WE LIVED!" - Usually because we blew a bunch of spells and magic items, not did anything particularly clever, unless it involved spells (again, a mechanical issue - non-casters simply could not turn battles by cleverness unless DM fiat or Magic Items were also involved).

That was cool and all, but late 3.XE and 4E had a very different situation - "We won through clever tactics and working together, yay!". Sometimes we thought that was true in other editions, but in 4E it was the default - failure to play smart and work together IN COMBAT in 4E was very very obvious. In previous editions, it tended to be something of an illusion, or a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

HOWEVER!

Much of the fun of a session isn't from combat, and 3.XE and 4E's combat length (often an hour) did bog sessions down a fair bit - many of the best sessions we had in every edition had relatively little combat, and much of what the players felt smartest about was from non-combat stuff.

HOWEVER!

There are exceptions - I know at least two of my players derive a great deal of pleasure from the tactical elements of 4E combat - they've said so repeatedly - including one who prior to 4E seemed like a bit of an idiot, tactics-wise, but it turned out he just liked playing classes which, prior to 4E, were incapable of doing much to change the course of a battle without lucky rolls (Thief, I'm looking at you - scouting is prep, not in-battle stuff, note), and is actually very tactically smart now.

So I'm not sure what the general reaction will be to 5E combat. 5E combat is much more like 2E, certainly in every playtest I've seen - most combats are "nothing" combats, i.e. over in 1-2 rounds with very little impact on the resources of the party - often a single AoE is enough to end them - just as in 2E, pretty much no-one in my group feels accomplishment from this as an adult (as kids, we loved this - frying 9 kobolds with one spell was amazing - as a grown-up, yeah, that thrill is long gone). The combats which aren't "nothing", and have a bigger impact on resources, still tend to be "blow all your things!" rather than "Play smart and work together!". That's not dire, but it is different, very definitely different.

It's for this reason I think I'm unlikely to give up my 4E game any time soon (not until we see the full tactical combat rules for 5E, and probably not then), because I don't 5E pleasing my group as much.

Now, it's just possible that the post-playtest 5E, which we've not seen, has managed to create some kind of "best of both worlds" situation, where combats feel tactical, but tend to top out at 30 minutes or less, rather than 45 minutes+. I have no reason to believe that, but I really hope it's the case, because such a thing could happen, and it could be better than 4E's combat.

One big test for me, of course, will be, "In an actual combat, do the Rogue's choices matter as much as those of the Wizard?". In every edition prior to 5E, for characters above about level 5, the answer tended strongly (not absolutely, but very strongly) to be an all-caps NOPE. Preparation-wise, both could matter (with the Rogue scouting, the Wizard prepping the right spells, and so on), but in combat, Wizard decisions mattered hugely, and Rogue ones were barely there (late 3.XE complicated this with all sorts of odd multiclasses, quasi-Rogues, gestalts and so on, so it was sometimes closer to 4E than other editions). Anyway, in a few months we'll know, but right now, based on my group's experiences, in-combat sense of accomplishment is pretty much gone (albeit not without some upsides).

EDIT - Wow that was a lot longer than it seemed like it was!

TLDR: 5E replaces the sense of accomplishment from good tactics and smart play that 4E offered with the weaker sense of accomplishment from a good ambush or a lucky/resource-blowing survival from 2E, but shorter combat allows for more sense of accomplishment from clever non-combat stuff (esp. as 5E retains a functional skill system).

 

[Blackbrrd]

This isn't the thread for a detailed discussion of it, but as a point of order, from a long-time 4E DM, basically everything Blackbrrd is saying here is either outright untrue or at least severely misleading. In brief:

1) Contrary to the apparent assertion, AoE in 4E is the weakest AoE in the history of D&D by a vast margin.
2) Damage-centric AoE in 4E is only valuable in certain specific encounter designs. Which apparently Blackbrrd's DM loves, but which are not "how it is". (Control-centric AoE has wider applications)
3) Spammable AoE does far less damage than Blackbrrd suggests, in practice, unless your DM is playing bizarrely and stacking monsters for you (you are not going to hit 4 non-minion monsters with a spammable AoE with any regularity in a normal campaign). His damage comparisons thus appear to be between Encounter or Daily AoE and At-Will Single-Target. Which is very misleading.
4) You don't have to kill every enemy to win combats in 4E, any more than other editions, unless your DM is treating things like a computer game - the whole "OMG AOE4EVER" fallacy relies on this silly business.
5) The levels of optimization discussed are vague and nonsensical, but even if we believe them, that is still BY FAR the best situation in any modern edition of D&D (i.e. 3.XE or later)! So the complaints here ring very false!
6) Combats only "drag on" if your DM insists you have to grind down every last enemy, and insists on throwing big, HP-heavy encounters at parties he knows the party aren't good at handling them.*

4E has tons of problems (much as I may like it), and combat taking too long can be one of them, but that has nothing to do with "optimized vs unoptimized", and this stuff about AoE is just laughable nonsense (and entirely specific to Blackbrrd's DM, I suspect).

* = I totally understand the preference of some people for "hard-static" encounter design and so on, but 4E is not designed on those assumptions, and a DM who tries to run it like it is will experience problems, just as one would trying to run 2E is a skill-centric game and so on (it's not impossible, but you're fighting the system either way).

EDIT - I should mitigate this criticism by pointing out that Blackbrrd DOES say "In the 4E campaign I am in...", so whilst his language seems to be more absolute/sweeping about 4E, he is being specific there. If he was in my campaign, I can assure you that he would not have the same opinion on the value of damage-centric AoE spells.

Saying that what I said was "outright untrue" is something you might consider retracting? It's just not correct. You might say you think I am misleading, but I am playing in a very typical 4e campaign, with the DM running the H-P-E series. 4e "fixed" much of the monster math with the MM3, but that doesn't update the monsters that are in printed modules. I am running my own 4e campaign with "fixed" math and with characters that are all efficient, but that isn't something that automatically happened.

1) I don't really disagree here, at least at level 13+. At the same time, it was so OP in 3.x that half the power of totally OP is still OP.
2) Well, this assumes you have somebody that deals damage while you control. With no damage dealer, the control is worthless*
3) I was comparing the Warlock's level 13 encounter power to my level 13 encounter power (Storm Cage**).
4) This is true for any editon, but the time it takes to get the monsters to go below a threshold is longer in play time in 4e than in 3e.
5) I have to agree here, the difference in 3e was probably even larger
6) see 4), and my DM has used H2, H3 and P1, setting up the monsters as indicated by the adventures

*And the higher you get in level, the less the extra dice matter, making the AoE stronger. Especially when there are so many options that lets you hit multiple targets as long as there are multiple targets, like Lightning Bolt or Arc Lightning.

**and the rest of my Encounter AoE is enemy only: Glorious Prescence and Lightning bolt. My best daily is the level 1 Flaming Sphere that does 1d4+(15-22) damage automatically to 1+ targets for a minor (and maybe a move action) every round from start to end. My at-will power Arc Lightning does 2x 1d6+(14-18) damage, which is basically the lowest damage I do. Most of the other characters don't do this much damage with their encounter powers...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Saying that what I said was "outright untrue" is something you might consider retracting? It's just not correct. You might say you think I am misleading, but I am playing in a very typical 4e campaign, with the DM running the H-P-E series.

I wouldn't say that was remotely "the typical 4E campaign", indeed I would say suggesting it was that was misleading! The "original WotC 4E default adventure path" or something maybe. That said I can retract "outright untrue" and just go with "really misleading" if you like!

4e "fixed" much of the monster math with the MM3, but that doesn't update the monsters that are in printed modules. I am running my own 4e campaign with "fixed" math and with characters that are all efficient, but that isn't something that automatically happened.

1) I don't really disagree here, at least at level 13+. At the same time, it was so OP in 3.x that half the power of totally OP is still OP.
2) Well, this assumes you have somebody that deals damage while you control. With no damage dealer, the control is worthless*
3) I was comparing the Warlock's level 13 encounter power to my level 13 encounter power (Storm Cage**).
4) This is true for any editon, but the time it takes to get the monsters to go below a threshold is longer in play time in 4e than in 3e.
5) I have to agree here, the difference in 3e was probably even larger
6) see 4), and my DM has used H2, H3 and P1, setting up the monsters as indicated by the adventures

*And the higher you get in level, the less the extra dice matter, making the AoE stronger. Especially when there are so many options that lets you hit multiple targets as long as there are multiple targets, like Lightning Bolt or Arc Lightning.

**and the rest of my Encounter AoE is enemy only: Glorious Prescence and Lightning bolt. My best daily is the level 1 Flaming Sphere that does 1d4+(15-22) damage automatically to 1+ targets for a minor (and maybe a move action) every round from start to end. My at-will power Arc Lightning does 2x 1d6+(14-18) damage, which is basically the lowest damage I do. Most of the other characters don't do this much damage with their encounter powers...

I get that you're playing an extremely optimized PC in a non-optimized group, but the fact remains that this is less of a problem in 4E than other editions, so... in 3E an optimized 13th+ level Wizard could invalidate the entire bloody party!

AoE remains a mediocre-to-bad option if you have a DM who actually knows what he's doing rather than apparently mindlessly using badly-written WotC modules.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I wouldn't say that was remotely "the typical 4E campaign", indeed I would say suggesting it was that was misleading! The "original WotC 4E default adventure path" or something maybe. That said I can retract "outright untrue" and just go with "really misleading" if you like!



I get that you're playing an extremely optimized PC in a non-optimized group, but the fact remains that this is less of a problem in 4E than other editions, so... in 3E an optimized 13th+ level Wizard could invalidate the entire bloody party!

AoE remains a mediocre-to-bad option if you have a DM who actually knows what he's doing rather than apparently mindlessly using badly-written WotC modules.

I was thinking you could write something like "I think Blackbrrd's point of view is really misleading because of...". It's not as if you are coming with an objective statement. But, nevermind, I see my statement just rubbed you the wrong way and you really didn't mean to be insulting.

The optimized 3E wizard couldn't invalidate the entire bloody party, because there would be somebody playing a cleric - or a druid!

 

[Blackbrrd]

AoE remains a mediocre-to-bad option if you have a DM who actually knows what he's doing rather than apparently mindlessly using badly-written WotC modules.

Now, this is strictly only true compared to suck-or-die powers with stacked save penalties, not compared to single target damage powers. Compared to those, the damage* output of AoE powers is pretty good. Btw, I never claimed that my character was optimized. I said he was efficient (hopefully). Optimized characters use suck-or-die powers and gets on your DM's nerves because he has to build entire encounters around them. Much like the 3.x spellcasters of level 10+.

*Assuming you have a good variety of powers like Lightning Bolt (pick three targets within 10sq), or Glorious Prescence (enemy only) which makes it easy to always hit 2+ target, and often more. You can then have one or two powers like Storm Cage which you can use if you get the opportunity, and the DM has to be pretty active to always keep his monsters at least 5sq away from each other, and it makes it hard for him to focus fire, so you get some automatic control in that case.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Now, this is strictly only true to suck-or-die powers, not compared to single target damage powers. Compared to those, the damage* output of AoE powers is pretty good.

*Assuming you have a good variety of powers like Lightning Bolt (pick three targets within 10sq), or Glorious Prescence (enemy only) which makes it easy to always hit 2+ target, and often more.

I think you're really stretching it here! The first is a multi-attack power, not AoE per se, and Glorious Presence is class feature of a very specific subclass of Wizard! All multi-attack powers are solid - Lightning Bolt kind of sucks actually, compared to others, because it has to spread damage around, though.

As for 3E, that's cheating! He could totally invalidate an un-optimized Cleric or Druid! Not CoDzilla or Bearstorm, sure.

EDIT - Also you are highly optimized (for damage), not just efficient! Which are the suck-or-die powers?

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think you're really stretching it here! The first is a multi-attack power, not AoE per se, and Glorious Presence is class feature of a very specific subclass of Wizard! All multi-attack powers are solid - Lightning Bolt kind of sucks actually, compared to others, because it has to spread damage around, though.

As for 3E, that's cheating! He could totally invalidate an un-optimized Cleric or Druid! Not CoDzilla or Bearstorm, sure.

EDIT - Also you are highly optimized (for damage), not just efficient! Which are the suck-or-die powers?

I wouldn't say highly optimized, I have only got implement focus, dual implement spellcaster, destructive wizardry, hellfire blood feats to boost my damage and a Gauntlets of Blood to boost my damage vs bloodied foes. I am pretty sure an optimized character could have gotten that static +14 to +22 damage bonus up at least ten higher. Just changing to Genasi would increase the damage bonus by five (strength to damage). A Staff of Ruin would increase the damage by another four. You would end up with something like +22 to 29 static damage bonus. Getting a +4 item in the off-hand instead of the current +2 would give +24 to +31 static damage modifier. Changing school from Evoker to Pyromancer would add another two damage for a +26 to +33 static modifer. To sum it up, my character is efficient, but there is a lot left before you get into optimized territory.

Glorious Presence is a level 1 Wizard encounter attack power as far as I can tell?

I don't actually know the suck-or die powers in 4e, but you have Face of Death (level 9 daily) or Sleep (level 1 daily) which can totally ruin encounters in the right hands. For instance a character that is optimized in the regards gives something like a -10 penalty to saves, (discussed here for instance: http://community.wizards.com/forum/4e-character-optimization/threads/2071436 )