D&D 5E Another Critical Hits 5E Report

[Rechan]

For most of the 'old school' group, the exploration is the point and the caution is smart game play. 'Action', if by that you mean combat, is generally to be avoided in favor of cunning plans and easier ways to get to the treasure. 'Story' is a non-element. At least, that's how I understand it as an outsider looking in.

Yes, I understand that. It's just not what I want when I sit down to play. I like it when things happen. With heavy exploration, it takes a lot of work/time on the player's part for something to happen, and success is when bad things don't happen - no, I want bad things to happen! IME "smart game-play" feels more like a game of 20 questions or trying to probe the "right answer" from the DM.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Yes, I understand that. It's just not what I want when I sit down to play.

I'm not a big fan of it either. The question is, are we the target audience for 5E? I'm beginning to wonder, considering that most of the marketing-speak seems to be focusing on 1E/OD&D/possibly BX nostalgia, with a nod to the 3E crowd. Mearls is on record as disliking 2E, which I find clunky in rules but generally sympathize with in tone and goals.

 

[Tortoise]

a climatic combat should last a strong portion of the session. 30 to 45 minutes. i'd be diappointed with a boss battle that was 5 minutes. One time i wrapped up a dragon fight in 5 minutes, that failed miserably.

I have to disagree. I'm running an old-school campaign and combats have ranged in duration from 5 minutes to over an hour and half, all with tense moments and uncertain outcomes.

My sessions typically are 4 hours long, or less factoring in the gabbing, etc, and the group manages to get in plenty of different things and sometimes multiple combats during that time.

If a group manages to take down what they perceive as a boss in a 5 minute battle they feel very powerful and damned lucky. That's not something the system should be built to take away from them. Sometimes that is exaclty the right thing.

 

[Sammael]

Flattening the power curve is a good thing.

However, flattening the power curve so much that you have to wait several levels to increase your effectiveness by 5% is pure rubbish. And it's a VERY odd decision for a "unifying" D&D edition, since D&D's power curve was never, ever that flat.

Unless that 15 Str grants you a +3 bonus (unlikely), then it makes exactly zero math sense for you to be able to auto-succeed at a DC 13 Strength check with it.

If the 15 Str does grant you a +3 bonus (or, perish the thought, an even higher bonus), that (coupled with the peasant-like progression chart of +5% to something once in a blue moon) means that ability scores will pretty much define your character from the start until the end. As I've stated earlier, that spells D-E-A-L-B-R-E-A-K-E-R for me and pretty much every single person I've ever gamed with.

But of course, from what we've seen so far, 5e is turning out to be a "mother may I" game anyway, and in such games, rules don't matter a whole lot (if at all). I can at least hope that since the rules won't be my cup of tea, they'll supply us with a lot of fluffy pre-Spellplague Forgotten Realms sourcebooks.

Forgive the bitterness, but this particular report did nothing to alleviate my fears. D&D Next is sounding more like 1e by the second, but that's not something I want to see. And add-on modules will be worthless if the core is rotten.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

The snipe at 4E was poorly worded.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Yeah, that quip about "4E Player Empowerment" and forcing players to go back to a terrible "old school" playstyle is absolutely horrible. I can't imagine wanting to play a game like that...

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.

 

[Agamon]

What's too bad is that he used "4e" in the statement. Player empowerment has been a problem for longer than 4e has been around.

Also, Mike being a 4e GM, I don't think it was a general slag at 4e, but just at something in 4e he's not fond of. It's an opinion article, I think he's allowed to state it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

A climactic battle should be long enough to actually evoke a feeling of grandeur and culmination. 5 minutes is about everybody sets up and the Wizard casts a Save or Die, which the save is failed, and then the looting commences.

But you don't know this is what happened. For all you know, they'd just mopped the floor with all the minions and the boss had fled into the next room, init was rolled, and all he had left to do was have them finish off the boss. There are also a million other possibilities.

All we know is that Mike thought he could get it done in that time and was impressed that it was possible. Therefore we know that low-level fights in 5e run fast. How much faster than other editions? No idea.

Since everything I've heard about the DDXP playtest implies that it was conducted at only one or two (low) levels, how can anyone who was there know enough to comment how this aspect of the new rules will work, or state with confidence that the changes successfully meet those design goals for greater balance across levels?

Especially since Mike does not seem to have seen high level play at all at DDXP.

I dunno, I heard one WotC guy talking about how fast it was for his group to roll-up 7th level characters. Mike had played 5e prior to DDXP. Maybe he played some higher levels? Though I doubt they are even thinking about Paragon (the teens) or Epic play yet.

I'd be happy if they work hard to make the tiers (as 4e defined) feel very different from each other.

My conclusions: DDN still looks peachy, and Mike Shea plugged in the Slightly Facetious module before composing his article.

I think he was just trying to make the point that DDN relies more on player input than intrinsic character potency. but it came off as a dig at 4e. No worries, I'm sure he still plays it. In a non-entitled manner.

Yeah, I don't think he meant for that to come off as offensive as it could be (and was) taken. I'm a big 4e fan and I knew what he meant without it offending me, though I can see how it could be taken that way.

So there's literally no way to judge what the game is going to feel like, or how long combat will be, once more tactical options are plugged in. It's pure speculation. I'd be cautious of forming any lasting opinions based on (apparently fun) 1st level play.

This is true, but we can like what we hear without being totally brainwashed by it, can't we?

I just hope they got the monster to combat length ratio correct...3e Monsters took to damn long to stat up, and combats went really quickly. 4e Monsters were quick to stat up but fights took too damn long to use a lot of them. We need monsters that are quick to stat up and quick to fight again.

We sure do!

I like it when things happen. With heavy exploration, it takes a lot of work/time on the player's part for something to happen, and success is when bad things don't happen - no, I want bad things to happen! IME "smart game-play" feels more like a game of 20 questions or trying to probe the "right answer" from the DM.

I like it when things happen, too. I'm all for exploration - but I draw the line at poking around at a million things that aren't dangerous in mortal fear of the things that MIGHT be dangerous. Exploration (and role-playing, for that matter) are important parts of the game I'd like to see. A new focus on teaching DMs and Players how to balance the flow of it would go a long way towards ending the weird idea that combat and roleplaying are on opposite sides of some imaginary line.

The question is, are we the target audience for 5E? I'm beginning to wonder, considering that most of the marketing-speak seems to be focusing on 1E/OD&D/possibly BX nostalgia, with a nod to the 3E crowd. Mearls is on record as disliking 2E, which I find clunky in rules but generally sympathize with in tone and goals.

That impression is given because they are testing the 1e-style component (the core rules) and 3e/4e components clearly work best as add-ons once you get the core component working well. Also, the module was 1e so the fluff reports (all we've really gotten) are going to make it sound like 1e if it even remotely did it's job right.

Does it not make sense to start as a 1e emulation (with better actual rules) and add complexity to bring it up to later editions?

I'm running an old-school campaign and combats have ranged in duration from 5 minutes to over an hour and half, all with tense moments and uncertain outcomes.

Sounds good. A DM should be able to run quick fights and long fights as the case warrents, and everything that's been said about 5e sounds like it will support doing just that.

When it's ready to. Nothing Mike said implied that we'd not be able to run a longer more intricate grand finale boss fight if/when we get to run it.

 

[Tom Servo]

I know I'm new on these boards but geez, we have to learn to grow a skin guys. It was a blog, it was his opinion. Obviously he feels 4e players have a sense of entitlement. Who cares?

If we force everyone to tip-toe around every little thing we'll never get any decent discussion or analysis of 5th edition. I'd rather get honest, unfiltered opinions and impressions.

 

[Herschel]

But you don't know this is what happened. For all you know, they'd just mopped the floor with all the minions and the boss had fled into the next room, init was rolled, and all he had left to do was have them finish off the boss. There are also a million other possibilities.

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.