D&D 5E Another Critical Hits 5E Report

[Sammael]

1. The skill thing could work. Just make a 15 strength a +15 to strength checks. Easy as pie. And it wouldn't cause any meaningful problems that I can think of.

Other than very nearly completely negating the effect of the d20 roll? We may as well drop dice rolling in that case. That, or switch to d40.

 

[Hassassin]

Other than very nearly completely negating the effect of the d20 roll? We may as well drop dice rolling in that case. That, or switch to d40.

If you add X to ability modifiers and X to DCs, nothing happens. The effect of the roll stays exactly the same.

Could be the modifiers are ability / 2 now, so all are positive. That would mean +7 with Str 15, so take 10 is more than enough for a DC 13 check.

Making modifiers just the score, or score - 10 *would* change things, but I wouldn't say it's unequivocally bad, since I haven't playtested.

 

[Phaezen]

Door spikes, I've always thought, are pretty stupid.

You have clearly never head to barricade yourself into a room in the dungeon overnight then.

Or had to block some doors so the enemy couldn't outflank you.

Door spikes are awesome.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I think I should re-state.

3e monsters took forever to stat up but got killed really quickly, not that the actual at table combat didn't take forver. I DID just for different reasons.

4e monsters are quick to stat up but can grind on way too long.

What I want is 4e monster birthing quickness that are able to stick around for a little bit but not long past their real usefulness.

ok - got it. I'd agree on both counts. There have been several times where the 4E combat outcome is not in doubt, but might still take several more rounds to actually finish.

Back in 2E days, the DM of my old group used to run massive, epic combats. We had an even bigger group then - 10 players. One encounter was the 10 PCs, 2 key NPCs, plus 30 caravan drovers and merchants on one side vs like 80 lizardmen, 6 giant dragonflies, a giant crocodile, two lizardmen shaman, including one who summoned a water elemental and a giant snake. But, it was basically 42 or so on one side, and nearly 100 on the other side.

It was still a long combat (several PCs were dropped below 0, but back then, another PC/ally only needed to reach you in order to stabilize you...) - but, it took up most of one five hour session. However, that sized combat in 3E would have taken 3 full sessions, and would have had to have been broken up into 4-5 combats in 4E, likely taking 2 full sessions.

 

[NewJeffCT]

You have clearly never head to barricade yourself into a room in the dungeon overnight then.

Or had to block some doors so the enemy couldn't outflank you.

Door spikes are awesome.

They could be pretty helpful for people in the coming zombie apocalypse as well.

 

[KarinsDad]

It sounds less like 4e player entitlement, and more that WotC provided a pregen character sheet without basic equipment. (I mean, really, every adventurer should at least have rope. Door spikes, I've always thought, are pretty stupid.)

Hmmm.

In 4E, the Adventurer's Kit doesn't have door spikes (or a hammer to knock them in with). So, most 4E PCs probably leave town without them.

How exactly is this the fault of the pregen and not the player saying "Hey, ..."?

 

[ExploderWizard]

3. Critical hits that kill fully healthy PCs are probably deal breakers for me.

I suppose you never played any 3E then.

If combat is supposed to be so dangerous that a single crit can kill my PC, then one of two things need to happen. Either the game needs to be non story based, and revolve around disposable characters so that I don't care when they die... or else the game has to be designed such that actual combat almost never happens because the PCs have the tools and inclination to avoid it. I don't for a minute believe that 5e will feature either of these- D&D has been about killing monsters in creative ways for far too long for it to completely reverse course now. More likely this is being included to satisfy those who feel that the potential for death-by-random-number-generation is crucial to their sense of danger in combat. My interests are diametrically opposed to these.

Perhaps the intent will be that combat is the most dangerous way to overcome problems and that trying other solutions first might be the smartest thing to try.

5. When 3e came out, I was able to very easily, very quickly recognize things that 3e would let me do that my previous D&D edition did not. This really excited me. The same was true of 4e. Even just by looking at the leaked 4e character sheets, I could see character concepts and ways of playing that didn't exist under previous editions, or which were supposed to exist... but didn't really exist as viable choices. In both cases this was the major selling point for me. The implicit, "Look at this edition! It lets you do NEW THINGS! Things you couldn't do before! Things that the rules promised but prevented you from doing! Things you always wanted to do! Things you didn't want to do because you never thought of, but now you can!"

Perhaps your stumbling block is letting a rulebook tell you what you can and cannot do in a fantasy roleplaying game driven by imagination. Once the rules are treated as the end-all of what you CAN do, you put yourself in a box from which it can be hard to escape.

 

[TheFindus]

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

I think it is good for you that you liked THAC0 and vancian magic and all that. At some point I liked that, too. But different versions of DnD appeal to different people. That is why some people do not like 4E.
If you want to have a version of the game that appeals to most players (it can never appeal to ALL of them, I don't think), you have to analyse what mechanical elements appeal and do not appeal to players. Because there are very distinguishable forms of taste in gameplay.

You have no problem with that combat example? That is fine. I, however, do. And I have never made the claim that this form of combat is a less valid way to play. I was and am speaking about taste. And about the fact that in my experience, 4E combat does not happen that way. So my claim is that the new edition should offer more than what that combat example has to offer in order to appeal to players of younger editions. 4E combat, in my experience, is different.
To call that "putting somebody in boxes" seems just a little far fetched to me. And it is an aweful way to start a conversation.

Now, this has nothing to do with the fact that I, too, wish for the next edition of DnD to succeed. Actually I am exited about it. But tastes differ and if WotC wants to cater to my style of combat and play, I need something more that "wizard casts a sleep spell and the fight is over" and "let's all go back to 10' poles" (by the way, I think it is very likely the next edition will offer that).

If you would like to talk about that, and whether 4E combat actually IS different from the described example, that is fine with me, after all this a discussion forum. But calling somebody "annoying" is not the form of discussion I am used to and willing to participate in.

 

[Nikosandros]

You have clearly never head to barricade yourself into a room in the dungeon overnight then.

Or had to block some doors so the enemy couldn't outflank you.

Door spikes are awesome.

Indeed. Rather recently, in the AD&D ToEE game that I'm running, door spikes literally saved the party from certain death, stopping a wave of onrushing ghouls.

 

[Argyle King]

I was thinking about the door comment.

Something I do in my home game sometimes is use Passive scores for things other than insight and perception. For example, there have been a few times when I've used a character's Passive Religion check or a Passive Arcana check to determine what they knew about a monster without needing to roll. Perhaps it's possible to do a Passive Strength check if your strength is high enough that a shoddy door shouldn't be an obstacle.

 

[Herschel]

Thats what inflated piles of hitpoints that exist for no other reason other than to make sure some chump stays in the fight X number of rounds until the PCs can get him to tap out by grinding that headlock. There are no effects that can mercifully end the torturous grind through the hit point pile except the DM calling it because his sanity was what was put in the headlock.

Your edition warring aside, a "boss fight" should be against an actually dangerous foe, not a chump. That's a DM problem, not a system issue.

 

[grimslade]

A minute combat is epic if it is 5 minutes of combat with a quick flow. Non epic is 2 hours to simulate 4 rounds. Or 40.
Shea writes columns trying to get the most out of 4E. I don't think he was edition flaming. Players become reliant on systems and a new edition throws out those preconceptions. It is fun to watch. The comment made me think about how reliant I had become on my character sheet or mod notes to run. I my 1E and 2E days I barely looked to see what was on my sheet. I had a piece note paper for ammo and rations and another for spells. With 3E the character sheet became the answer to everything. 4E even more, plus you could have cards too. You can run 3.x and 4E in marvelously creative ways with devious players and maniacal rat bastard DMs, but the rules impede that a little. You have to work around looking at paper to grab your answer.
I think the caveat that a system works great at low levels and without option bloat should be heeded. Playtesters are going to have their merry evil way with these rules soon, without the carefully preset experience at DDXP. This is where the stresses will show. I want to see people work these rules over worse than an Torquemada with a migraine.

 

[Roland55]

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.

Sounds reasonable to me.

A little patience ... a little tolerance.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither was any-E.

If you carry a chip on your shoulder, someone's going to knock it off.

 

[Ichneumon]

I know I'm new on these boards but geez, we have to learn to grow a skin guys.

Thanks to being a 4e gamer for over three years, I'm now officially double-bagged.

 

[Jack99]

I think it is good for you that you liked THAC0 and vancian magic and all that. At some point I liked that, too. But different versions of DnD appeal to different people. That is why some people do not like 4E.
If you want to have a version of the game that appeals to most players (it can never appeal to ALL of them, I don't think), you have to analyse what mechanical elements appeal and do not appeal to players. Because there are very distinguishable forms of taste in gameplay.

You have no problem with that combat example? That is fine. I, however, do. And I have never made the claim that this form of combat is a less valid way to play. I was and am speaking about taste. And about the fact that in my experience, 4E combat does not happen that way. So my claim is that the new edition should offer more than what that combat example has to offer in order to appeal to players of younger editions. 4E combat, in my experience, is different.
To call that "putting somebody in boxes" seems just a little far fetched to me. And it is an aweful way to start a conversation.

Now, this has nothing to do with the fact that I, too, wish for the next edition of DnD to succeed. Actually I am exited about it. But tastes differ and if WotC wants to cater to my style of combat and play, I need something more that "wizard casts a sleep spell and the fight is over" and "let's all go back to 10' poles" (by the way, I think it is very likely the next edition will offer that).

If you would like to talk about that, and whether 4E combat actually IS different from the described example, that is fine with me, after all this a discussion forum. But calling somebody "annoying" is not the form of discussion I am used to and willing to participate in.

You are shifting the goal posts. We were talking about you. You said:

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.

You made a very broad generalization about 4e players, which, in my world, amounts to putting them in a box. Maybe it is a language thing. Anyway, as I explained quite clearly in my post, I am a 4e player (DM rather), I love 4e, 4e is my favorite edition so far, and yet, I am jazzed about how things were described. So obviously not all 4e players will take issue with the combat described.

 

[Hassassin]

Your edition warring aside, a "boss fight" should be against an actually dangerous foe, not a chump. That's a DM problem, not a system issue.

Whether someone is a dangerous foe doesn't have to correlate with how long the fight lasts.

You can have a one round TPK or a ten round fight where no PC loses hp. I wish both of those extremes are rare when the DM doesn't want it, of course.

 

[Tortoise]

Your edition warring aside, a "boss fight" should be against an actually dangerous foe, not a chump. That's a DM problem, not a system issue.

As I said before, a boss doesn't have to be able to fight to be dangerous or a worthy target.
A wimp with resources and connections can cause a party more trouble than just a big brute of a fighter.

 

[marleykat]

After reading the whole thread at the Big Purple and seeing similar comments on this thread I come away confused that so many people are completely overreacting to what could be defined as the choice of poorly chosen word, at worse. Made worse by knowing little information and no context yet some are carrying on as if personally attacked, much ado about nothing and completely missing what was actually said in favor of over parsing a couple words to prove some personal agenda about WotC hating 4e.

 

[JonWake]

The Big Purple makes this and the WoTC boards look like a cuddle-fest. Those people are vicious.

 

[marleykat]

The Big Purple makes this and the WoTC boards look like a cuddle-fest. Those people are vicious.

IMO they're ok they're just a heavily pro 4e forum. Not my preference but not really vicious. You want vicious? I would say SA forums and TGD are vicious. Now for fun the RPGSite is the polar opposite of TBP and not just in board /mod policy.