D&D 5E Considering the D&D Next Playtest in Light of the WotC Seminars

[Fanaelialae]

Well, it isn't easy as pie, but I don't think it is as bad as all that. For one thing, you can do it in more ways than merely changing the hit point/expected damage ratio directly:

RC weapon mastery style, a bit of a genre emulation method - throw in some parries and other such active defenses that are practically non-existent at low levels, but get better as you go.

Indie metagaming - those "fate" points start at zero but go up steadily as you level.

Magic will do it, kind of a mid to high fantasy trope - provide a few extra spell options at higher levels that can really cut out the danger for a time.

The old standby, magic items - get more generous with damage mitigation items.

Naturally, all of those can also be set on a more steady scale, whether you want a lot of lethalness or not.

The more consistent lethalness is in the base, the easier it is to make all those flexible. Maybe some people want "moderate lethal" at a given point, then you get the right spells to hold it off, and when you run out of those spells on a particular high level adventure, you are just as much at risk as you were at 1st level.

This seems to me like it would be vastly more complex (and therefore difficult to get "just right") than just a single dial. The more dials you throw in the more you muddy the water.

As for making lethality dependent on a spell (or weapon specialization), well... it doesn't strike me as a very good way to approach lethality. In the case of the spell, you're basically saying "memorize this spell or die". That's terrible game design. A game like D&D is about making choices. You can't make choices if you're dead. Giving the casters the choice of "spell or death" marginalizes their ability to make those valid choices, and is therefore bad design.

Some of your other methods might work, but are either require a particular style (every PC must have heavy fortification armor if you want to run a low lethality campaign) or are just plain clunky (you're impossible to kill until you run out of fate points, and then you die).

HP have always handled lethality, and have done so respectably. I don't know why you'd want to use anything else as your primary lethality dial, aside from perhaps damage (which really just approaches the equation from the other side).

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=40961]Cadfan[/MENTION]

No - those are your goals.

We like to play a gritty style of game. We like the idea that if a guard is pointing a crossbow at you and says don't move, there is actually danger in moving - meaning, yes, you could die with that one shot.

In a game we played recently (not dnd) as group of elves in the woods, we snuck up on a camp of hobgoblins. Gaining surprise, we took out all of the hobgoblins in our initial volley.

Immediately the GM said something like "I am not sure about these rules, those hobgobs didn't stand a chance". We had been playing 4E prior to this, so it was a shock to see so many go down without getting a chance to use their powers.

Then, as a group, we went, "Nah, that was totally cool. If this was a movie, that would have looked great." If a bunch of elves gain surprise over a bunch of outsiders in the woods, they should be able to take them out.

Of course, you are probably thinking what if this was the reverse? Well, if the PCs wander into a dangerous area where there are known stealthy hostiles, are too confident to put up defenses, then yes it might. We are cool with that. It is not bad design to us. Those are YOUR goals/views.

We like the danger, and have crit charts with even greater damage possibilities that max/double damage. We love that style of play, and as I have said, have had some of our greatest moments (and memorable character deaths) playing this way.

I don't expect DnD Next to follow our style. I am merely stating it as a preference. I certainly won't say it is wrong if it doesn't do things the way we want. I just hope it is a solid rules set I/we can tinker with, as we have always done.

For the record - our last 4E campaign played out to its conclusion without a single PC death, even though there were only 3 PCs (with the odd help of an NPC at times). Often I didn't modify encounters, meaning I challenged them as if they were 5.

The big battles at the end included waves of fights, where they finished with at-wills and no APs.

Pretty epic stuff and a fun campaign overall, but at its conclusion, one player stated, "Looking at what we did, that was too easy. You took it easy on us". Obviously from our play style it certainly seemed that way given what they had achieved with no deaths (and only a very few near deaths - one on the last roll of the campaign ).

Anyway - play styles vary. Designing a game suit them all will be hard, but I wish them luck.

 

[Cadfan]

@Cadfan

No - those are your goals.

We like to play a gritty style of game. We like the idea that if a guard is pointing a crossbow at you and says don't move, there is actually danger in moving - meaning, yes, you could die with that one shot.

I'll say it again.

There is a difference between

1. There is a danger, and

2. You could die with that one shot.

Pretty epic stuff and a fun campaign overall, but at its conclusion, one player stated, "Looking at what we did, that was too easy. You took it easy on us". Obviously from our play style it certainly seemed that way given what they had achieved with no deaths (and only a very few near deaths - one on the last roll of the campaign ).

The idea that random crit deaths for fully healthy characters would make it less "easy" is laughable. "Easy" is a matter of challenge. There is no challenge in crossing your fingers and hoping that the DM doesn't roll a 20. Challenge exists in the decisions you make. Random crit kills on fully healthy characters doesn't allow you a decision, UNLESS completely avoiding combat is a legitimate and fully supported decision 100% of the time you're facing a monster who can one shot kill a fully healthy PC.

 

[GSHamster]

I wonder how many of the "high lethality" players would like a game where every attack was Save or Die. Monster swings at you, roll a Save, if you fail, the monster kills you. If you suceed, you parry or dodge the attack.

I'm not being entirely glib. There are several shooters with one-shot kills on both sides, and they are an interesting experience.

Personally, I wouldn't mind traditional 1st level lethality, but with an offsetting mechanic. Maybe Fate points or similar. Lethal games are interesting, but having a character killed by the very first action of a adventure, before they even get a chance to act, is a little too lethal for me. At least let them burn a Fate point to avoid that specific death.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I wonder how many of the "high lethality" players would like a game where every attack was Save or Die. Monster swings at you, roll a Save, if you fail, the monster kills you. If you suceed, you parry or dodge the attack.

I wonder how many of them played with DMs that fudged a lot.

 

[JohnSnow]

I wonder how many of them played with DMs that fudged a lot.

I'd wager, if we're talking 2e and earlier, I'd bet the answer is "all."

I've DM'ed since I was a precocious kid just figuring out the D&D Basic Set. I never simply "let the dice fall where they may" - because i didn't want to kill my friends' characters, who were tiny little labors of love.

The number of DM's who were willing to just casually kill off someone's 1hp first-level wizard to a kobold knife? I'd wager it was VERY low. Now, they might have fudged by targeting the tougher fighter rather than risk killing the wizard, but I'd lay money that we ALL fudged.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think, on this thread, I might be mistaken for someone who likes "high lethality". Not so.

I just don't see:

You can possibly be killed by a monster rolling a crit while at first level.

means

You will be killed by monsters rolling crits often enough to make it a bad game.

 

[Saracenus]

I'd wager, if we're talking 2e and earlier, I'd bet the answer is "all."

I've DM'ed since I was a precocious kid just figuring out the D&D Basic Set. I never simply "let the dice fall where they may" - because i didn't want to kill my friends' characters, who were tiny little labors of love.

The number of DM's who were willing to just casually kill off someone's 1hp first-level wizard to a kobold knife? I'd wager it was VERY low. Now, they might have fudged by targeting the tougher fighter rather than risk killing the wizard, but I'd lay money that we ALL fudged.

Well, not all. When I was a little D&D player back in 1979 we all took turns DMing and so it was that it was Christian's turn to take the reigns.

He had us roll up two characters each for an "Awesome Adventure" he had created (up to that point we had used mods from TSR and other companies). That should have been a red flag, but we had used multiple characters before.

First room was a displacer beast vs. 10 1st level PCs. There was much carnage but we prevailed. I still had one PC left, someone had 2 PCs alive, and a few had to roll up new ones, so we pressed on. Next room Lemerian Hydra! There was silence. He was grinning like Jack Nicholson about to say "Heeeeeeeeeeere's Jonnnnnny!"

While we chased him out of the house, we all agreed that Christian did not get to DM again, ever. We also agreed that the next person to DM would kill his PC in the first encounter. Middle-schoolers can be so vindictive.

 

[Kynn]

As for the rest of what's being discussed... if a first level character with full hit points can die from a single critical hit, that will be a deal breaker. I'm basically just treading water until I see that officially confirmed (one playtester confirmed it, but I'm hopeful that the designers aren't fools). If you design a game that (1) encourages deeply investing in characters with personality and back story, and (2) you make that game so that characters, played properly, will engage in combat with some regularity, and (3) you make that game so that dead characters can't be easily resurrected... then if you make it so that totally random events during inevitable gameplay moments can kill off a fully healthy character who was played without mistakes, you've designed a bad game. End. Of. Debate.

Agreed.

However, it's possible that they aren't shooting for goal (1) necessarily.

There are play styles which favor the idea of characters being disposable, especially at level 1 -- "just roll up a new one and continue!"

It's nothing I particularly enjoy, but it's entirely likely that "encourage deeply investing in characters with personality and back story" is not currently a design goal for 5e.

If it is a goal, it certainly wouldn't be apparent in the DDXP playtests -- which makes you wonder if the priority is now on the combat mechanics and "exploration" pillars, with "roleplaying" assumed to come later in the design process.

That approach didn't work so well in 4e, though. It took them forever to get around to addressing the roleplaying aspects of playing 4e characters.

 

[Kynn]

Point the First: Hit Points scale faster than damage does. Especially for a fighter. By 3rd or 4th level, a nasty crit can hurt, but likely won't kill you. This is a feature, not a bug.

Actually we don't know that for sure in 5e. It's possible that at level 4, a crit could still take out the fighter with one shot.