D&D 5E Another Critical Hits 5E Report

[Hassassin]

F o u r h o u r s g o n e.

I laugh about it every time I think about it.

I think that's a better result that most of my 4h preps.

Usually the fight lasts longer, but rarely is it really that memorable. More often it's the no-prep on the fly things that are memorable in my games.

 

[Truename]

I sincerely hope that was the case, because an actual combat of five minutes is nothing. I just took part in a ten minute combat last Sunday: my first level character slew the giant worm guarding the entrance in one normal blow. We all were completely deflated.

I disagree. I'm using an alternate combat "module" in my paragon-tier 4e games where we run interesting, flavorful multi-round combats in less than ten minutes. Each turn takes about 20 seconds; a round takes a few minutes; and combats take less than five rounds. That's in contrast to my normal 4e combats, which take a minute or two per turn.

I can totally see an interesting fight happening in five or ten minutes as long as each player's turn is fast.

To be fair, though, I only use my "skirmish module" for filler battles. I break out the standard 4e rules for climactic set-pieces. In 5e, I can imagine using the tactical combat module in the same way.

 

[M.L. Martin]

*Wizard casts sleep on the ogre.
*Halfling rogue slits the ogre's throat.

Hmmm...this is the more worrisome part than 'paladin gets flattened' for me.

Was this all the wizard could do in all the encounters put together, or did he
have other options in the other encounters?
Was the success of the sleep spell against an ogre likely, or was this more of a desperation move?
And was the rogue's success a combination of skill, special abilities, and a bit of luck, or was it a fait accompli once the ogre was taking a nap?

 

[TheFindus]

I playtested 5E at DDXP and really enjoyed it. I didn't read my NDA terribly closely, so hopefully I won't get in trouble for sharing this.

We successfully explored one cavern complex, dealing with a variety of kobolds. We were chased out of a second cavern complex by orcs. After regrouping, we approached a third cavern. Sitting outside in a hollowed out rock, with back turned to us, was an ogre. The fight wents something like this...

*We approach as a group.
*The ogre notices us, stands, and limbers up his club arm.
*Somewhat injured paladin charges the ogre and gets flattened (i.e. dead).
*Halfling rogue slips around behind the ogre.
*Wizard casts sleep on the ogre.
*Halfling rogue slits the ogre's throat.

This information together with the info in the blog suggest that the new edition will probably please players of very old versions of DnD. Judging from the marketing WotC is doing, this seems to be one important target group for them, so they seem to be catering to their taste.
It will be interesting to see if the new version will be able to satisfy players of younger versions of the game as well, especially those who are WotC's actual loyal customers right now.
I do not think that the combat example above will impress those who like 4E for example. Neither will they be awed by having to use 10' poles again.
In trying to please all tastes, the designers are aiming very high. I really hope they can deliver.

 

[gloomhound]

4e seems to put a strong emphasis on having only conflicts the character can solve with no planning, and without having to run away.

So what happens if you don't win the conflict, can't you run away? Or is not winning also not possible?

 

[Jack99]

This information together with the info in the blog suggest that the new edition will probably please players of very old versions of DnD. Judging from the marketing WotC is doing, this seems to be one important target group for them, so they seem to be catering to their taste.
It will be interesting to see if the new version will be able to satisfy players of younger versions of the game as well, especially those who are WotC's actual loyal customers right now.
I do not think that the combat example above will impress those who like 4E for example. Neither will they be awed by having to use 10' poles again.
In trying to please all tastes, the designers are aiming very high. I really hope they can deliver.

It's really getting annoying when some people put everyone else in boxes.

I am a 4e customer. In fact, I have bought every single WotC 4e book/boxset released and 100+ third party products. And I am still buying products. I am also a fan of 4e - a big fan. C4bal, f4nboi, 4venger etc. Been there and done (or at least called) that. And yet, I am very much looking forward to dndnext, and I have absolutely no issue with the combat example that Mike posted.

Maybe it's because I have realized that just because 4e is great and so far the edition that has worked the best for me, it doesn't mean that dndnext can't be even greater, even though it looks and feels like other editions. I don't judge an edition based on whether it has THACO or Vancian magic or healing surge. I base my opinion on how the game as a whole runs and works for me.

/shrug

 

[FitzTheRuke]

In general use I agree fully but in this (the first chance to show off your new edition/sytem) it's kind of dumb to not follow that formula. It's like when playing a rock concert. You don't end on a sappy ballad or run-of-the-mill song, you nail them with a big hit and adrenalin-pumping anthem for the finale so they last thing they remember (and often most vividly) is a climactic high point.

We continue to agree in principle. But for all we know, he didn't even get to the real BBEG of the module and meant "A" boss fight. Not "the" boss fight.

At any rate, I getchya. I just don't think we can tell anything about 5e from his statement, other than it's likely that you CAN run combats fast. "Should you" or "can you run them slow" are another matter.

 

[Gamer McSmartypants]

...

 

[Lord Mhoram]

One thing to remember/consider on these reports - notably if you are 4E fan - is that this is the "base" game. The simple version. I was expecting a very OD&D or 1st ed vibe from that. It is the base everything else builds on and has options to change.


I suspect once the tactical modules and some other later stuff, it can feel much more 4E-ish. We just haven't seen any of those yet as the playtest of the basic game is being run.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I still strongly dislike the way they seem to be handling ability scores, but we'll see if their implementation is different from my interpretation. As it stands, I think it breaks down too much (it's too swingy) on opposed checks. 1d20+0 (Dex +0) and 1d20+4 (Dex +3, specialization +1) aren't that far apart, and doesn't make the rogue that much better at sneaking than the Fighter. And, if they are lowering ability score advancement, it might remain similar over many levels.

The upside:

• I have no concrete idea on how they're handling it. I might be very wrong.
• I think they'll be implementing a skill module. That's a good thing, because I love skills.

On a separate note, I actually dislike the idea of a boss battle taking up 5 minutes in real time. I'd rather the "lesser" fights take less, but we're okay devoting time to "that one awesome fight" that things seemed to build naturally around for a couple months. We look back fondly on those fights, when they go well, and the PCs barely win but everyone is messed up, stumbling away from the fight, carrying an unconscious comrade or two.

At any rate, I'll just have to see how it unfolds. I'm guessing we're missing things right now, and that's not even counting the unstable state the game is currently at. I'm looking forward to finding out more. As always, play what you like

 

[Snapdragyn]

I share the concern about the potential overemphasis on ability scores (w/ all caveats regarding early play-testing, lack of modules, etc.). In particular, with the statements about slower scaling of attack modifiers, I'm worried that 5e could perhaps be a game where your initial roll for stats makes or breaks your character for as many levels as it survives. :/

 

[fuzzlewump]

So what happens if you don't win the conflict, can't you run away? Or is not winning also not possible?

Are you asking my personal preference, my opinion of what Dnd in general should be, my opinion of what 4e currently is, or what?

Like I said, your game can be whatever you want. But the game as presented in the books, modules, and the Dnd encounters does in my opinion engender the entitlement mindset. As in, 'I'm entitled to a balanced encounter with no thought required beyond character creation and in combat tactics because that's the game as it is presented by the creators.' keep in mind, I'm not saying this 'entitlement' is a bad thing. In my mind, entitlement just means strong expectation, and those strong expectations are formed from the social contract between players and dm, and that contract is informed by the rules and the game as presented.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is really funny how well 4e combats run if you throw out most expectations over board.
magic items according to level... forget it...
monsters in range +/- 3... forget it...
players expected to win every battle... forgit it too

Today I just used the replaced PC (blackguard) as a monster, just adding insubstantial (which was immediately canceled by radiant damage) and went with it against a 4 person party.
I did well over 100 damage total before it went down, nearly dropping the slayer. all other PCs had been dropped.
We had a blast!

 

[Essenti]

I share the concern about the potential overemphasis on ability scores (w/ all caveats regarding early play-testing, lack of modules, etc.). In particular, with the statements about slower scaling of attack modifiers, I'm worried that 5e could perhaps be a game where your initial roll for stats makes or breaks your character for as many levels as it survives. :/

If the intended design as listed on the 5e info page is to unify the feel of play to include all prior versions of D&D with their modular framework. And this first taste is just the pure baseline--ie, not even scaled up to BECMI level... Having modules that scale the progression of the game further (including dials from gritty to superhero) would be really easy to layer on top of this ultra light and flat mechanic we are currently glimpsing. As a foundation for layering the "feel" of other editions, I think they might have nailed it, or I'm at least hopefull and optimistic that they have. With what little information has trickled out already, I think it's a brilliant baseline.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If a Paladin can't even hold off an Ogre's strike, then that is a pretty poor Paladin. A heavily armored, physically tough class like the Paladin shouldn't be the weak link in a battle against an enemy who uses straightforward physical attacks. That simply is not living up to the class's name.

I don't want to see any more editions where the sleep spell makes entire classes obsolete...

We know (a) that he is somewhat injured and (b) that the PCs are low level - maybe even first level?

This exact same scenario could have been played out this way in every edition of D&D prior to 4e; to 1st/2nd level PCs an ogre has always been one of the apex threats - tough and hands out a lot of damage.

And your sleep comment is somewhat hyperbolic - the alternative reading would be 'thank goodness that on that one occasion the sleep spell saved our bacon and allowed us as a team to defeat that terrible foe'. Even at its best in earlier editions it would only win one encounter - the party as a whole has to win all their encounters.

Cheers

 

[Tortoise]

Apparently your idea of a "boss fight" differs from mine and many (most?) others. The BBEG is supposed to be climactic and tough, not just some gobbo to "mop up". If you back him in to a corner, he's dangerous.

I don't care if every other fight lasted only a few minutes, this is the big scene in the story. If there were extenuating circumstances it should have been written.

Have you ever seen the show Firefly? There was an episode of it in which the BBEG was an old, very evil, rich, mobster type. He wasn't some combat monster, he had henchmen, hirelings, and minions for that stuff. When main characters got past his goons, he was a wimp, but still an important and satisfying target for their anger.

Not all BBEG need to be able to fight for confrontations to be interesting.

 

[Tortoise]

I hope WotC does something to counteract this trend of making 5E look like a 1E throwback with nothing to offer late-3E/4E fans. I want to see a good new edition, but all of this is making me very, very worried.

Reading through the transcripts of the seminars it is clear that some ideas from all editions, 4e, 3e, etc, are in the mix.

 

[Tortoise]

If a Paladin can't even hold off an Ogre's strike, then that is a pretty poor Paladin. A heavily armored, physically tough class like the Paladin shouldn't be the weak link in a battle against an enemy who uses straightforward physical attacks. That simply is not living up to the class's name.

I don't want to see any more editions where the sleep spell makes entire classes obsolete...

If it were 1e then the ogre could do 1d10 or by weapon damage and the Paladin could potentially have a starting maximum of 14 hit points at 1st level. Being already injured, even without a crit there is a chance of taking the Paladin out in one swing.

The things we don't know here are many. Was the Paladin in fact heavily armored? What were his current hit points? What damage capability did the ogre have? etc, etc, etc.

I suggest waiting to find out more details before jumping to conclusions.

 

[Rechan]

This exact same scenario could have been played out this way in every edition of D&D prior to 4e; to 1st/2nd level PCs an ogre has always been one of the apex threats - tough and hands out a lot of damage.

In 4e, an ogre would be a level 8 threat. Against a single 1st level PC, he'd stomp a hole in them.

 

[Rechan]

One thing to remember/consider on these reports - notably if you are 4E fan - is that this is the "base" game. The simple version. I was expecting a very OD&D or 1st ed vibe from that. It is the base everything else builds on and has options to change.


I suspect once the tactical modules and some other later stuff, it can feel much more 4E-ish. We just haven't seen any of those yet as the playtest of the basic game is being run.

I've said it before every time this point comes up.

If I don't like how the base rules work, then it doesn't matter what kind of goodies I layer on top of a rotten foundation. If the fundamental mechanics are bleh to me, I'm not buying.

So far I really, really dislike the Ability Scores as Saves, and Opposed Rolls. Even if you tear those out, you're still tearing it out. Adding is easeier than subtracting.