Radiating Gnome
Adventurer
Excellent. Looks like I'm down to three or four players for this weekend; anyone in Las Vegas want to play?
...checks flights to vegas...
...remembers Wichita is snowed in today...
...pouts...
D&D 5E Brainstorming needed for DnDNext playtest: "Against the Tyranny of the Frost Giants!"
- Thread starter Piratecat
- Start date
...checks flights to vegas...
...remembers Wichita is snowed in today...
...pouts...
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
Brainstorming needed for DnDNext playtest: "Against the Tyranny of the Frost Gi
I ended up giving them no magic items to start, but when I sicced an ice devil on them I nerfed its resistance to non-magical weapons. They got three potions as treasure early on, then a solid magic item each when they found a treasure room. There's nothing happier in this world than a dwarf cleric with a dwarven thrower hammer.
The playtest was superb. Much silliness at the beginning, then settling down as the action began. Three 9th lvl PCs (paladin, fire evoked, cleric.) Encounters went:
1. 3 goblins mounted on wargs, 1 frost giant (easy)
2. Roper (medium-hard)
3. 2 frost giant (medium)
4. Ice devil (hard)
(They camped)
5. 3 frost giants, goblin shaman, undead mammoth. (Hard)
6. Tumultuous escape on sleds (medium)
I ended up giving them no magic items to start, but when I sicced an ice devil on them I nerfed its resistance to non-magical weapons. They got three potions as treasure early on, then a solid magic item each when they found a treasure room. There's nothing happier in this world than a dwarf cleric with a dwarven thrower hammer.
The playtest was superb. Much silliness at the beginning, then settling down as the action began. Three 9th lvl PCs (paladin, fire evoked, cleric.) Encounters went:
1. 3 goblins mounted on wargs, 1 frost giant (easy)
2. Roper (medium-hard)
3. 2 frost giant (medium)
4. Ice devil (hard)
(They camped)
5. 3 frost giants, goblin shaman, undead mammoth. (Hard)
6. Tumultuous escape on sleds (medium)
Blackwarder
Adventurer
How did you adjudicate this?
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
Brainstorming needed for DnDNext playtest: "Against the Tyranny of the Frost Gi
Dex checks from one PC, with Advantage due to aid. Rapid-fire narration of everything they passed. 5-6 decisions ("big tunnel or small tunnel?) that affected their challenges en route. They had 20 rounds to get out; by sledding past giants instead of fighting them, they made it in 15.
Dex checks from one PC, with Advantage due to aid. Rapid-fire narration of everything they passed. 5-6 decisions ("big tunnel or small tunnel?) that affected their challenges en route. They had 20 rounds to get out; by sledding past giants instead of fighting them, they made it in 15.
Manbearcat
Legend
What would a failure on a Dex check yield; falling off the sleds, mechanical malfunction, careening into a wall and spilling occupants, cave-in and crash + double back, random encounter? If just falling off of the sleds, is that just tallied as one round of failure against the goal of 20 rounds to get out?
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
There's really two things at play there: potential obstacles and failed checks.
Potential obstacles included closed and locked ice barriers that had to be picked/battered down, and lone or multiple frost giants in the corridor. Those giants were swinging axes and tossing rocks, even as the PCs slid between their legs.
Failed int checks (if I had remembered to ask for them) would have lead to getting lost, adding +1d6 rounds.
Failed dex checks include crashing the sled (taking dmg and losing rounds), not being able to stop in time before the aforementioned barriers, not dodging falling debris,and not dodging giant legs. That would've sucked.
Potential obstacles included closed and locked ice barriers that had to be picked/battered down, and lone or multiple frost giants in the corridor. Those giants were swinging axes and tossing rocks, even as the PCs slid between their legs.
Failed int checks (if I had remembered to ask for them) would have lead to getting lost, adding +1d6 rounds.
Failed dex checks include crashing the sled (taking dmg and losing rounds), not being able to stop in time before the aforementioned barriers, not dodging falling debris,and not dodging giant legs. That would've sucked.
Manbearcat
Legend
Gotcha. That's kind of how I figured it. Sounds like it was a success and you guys had fun.
Its interesting to note though that to one person it is two things at play while to another they are one in the same. Its very revealing of the disparate nature of playstyles that 5e has to navigate; the stuff that leads to the various "Shrodinger's" conversations. One table generates content, adversity, pressure solely external to the enterprise of task resolution; they assume the interpretation of the outcome of the resolved task is interaction (up or down, pass or fail) with pre-established obstacles. The next table may generate content, adversity, pressure the same way. However, they may also interpret the outcome of a resolved task as content, adversity, obstacle generation external to the PCs locus of control (the various "Shrodinger's" elements). A failed drive/ride check doesn't always mean just a failure to drive; it could mean that something new, tangentially or orthogonally related to the character controlling the reins/steering or navigating the terrain manifests or occurs which generates new content that must be dealt with now.
There are a few various expectations of such systems but one of them is "objective DCs" versus of-level "subjective DCs" during conflict resolution.
Its interesting to note though that to one person it is two things at play while to another they are one in the same. Its very revealing of the disparate nature of playstyles that 5e has to navigate; the stuff that leads to the various "Shrodinger's" conversations. One table generates content, adversity, pressure solely external to the enterprise of task resolution; they assume the interpretation of the outcome of the resolved task is interaction (up or down, pass or fail) with pre-established obstacles. The next table may generate content, adversity, pressure the same way. However, they may also interpret the outcome of a resolved task as content, adversity, obstacle generation external to the PCs locus of control (the various "Shrodinger's" elements). A failed drive/ride check doesn't always mean just a failure to drive; it could mean that something new, tangentially or orthogonally related to the character controlling the reins/steering or navigating the terrain manifests or occurs which generates new content that must be dealt with now.
There are a few various expectations of such systems but one of them is "objective DCs" versus of-level "subjective DCs" during conflict resolution.
Last edited:
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
Good post.
It was sort of a cobbled-together, half-assed skill challenge, but it worked well. Instead of aiming for an arbitrary goal (8 success before 3 failures), it had an external timer (albeit one I somewhat fudged) and any number of obstacles. Dealing with those obstacles would take up an indeterminate amount of time, and skill checks and clever (or lucky) tactics would bypass those obstacles.
My default DC was a 15, modified upwards or downwards by what the PCs were describing and trying to do. For instance, at one point they all tucked in and slid between a frost giant's legs. If they'd tried to attack him on the way by, you can bet that DC would have gone up.
It was sort of a cobbled-together, half-assed skill challenge, but it worked well. Instead of aiming for an arbitrary goal (8 success before 3 failures), it had an external timer (albeit one I somewhat fudged) and any number of obstacles. Dealing with those obstacles would take up an indeterminate amount of time, and skill checks and clever (or lucky) tactics would bypass those obstacles.
My default DC was a 15, modified upwards or downwards by what the PCs were describing and trying to do. For instance, at one point they all tucked in and slid between a frost giant's legs. If they'd tried to attack him on the way by, you can bet that DC would have gone up.
Last edited:
Manbearcat
Legend
Yup. Good stuff. No doubt this played to the strength of 5e's core design elements; specifically the off-the-cuff resolution via ability checks. I suspect you may have created a few new interested souls or heightened the interest of those whose were already piqued.
