D&D 5E (2014) D&D 5e Basic Set: Things that make you go "what?!"

[Sadrik]

You roll sneak attack dice twice on a crit. Oh my.

 

[Sadrik]

Death savings throws are not savings throws instead just a simple 10+ roll. I would imagine a CON save DC XX would have been better, at least if you were going to call it a savings throw...

 

[Li Shenron]

The Sleep spell caught my attention -- twice.

On the first read: Ok, I will most likely be a infrequent player/GM for D&D going forward (my group has moved on overall). So I am looking at this version to see if they alleviated some of the things the our group came to dislike with 3rd and 4th (what little we played). So I wander through the PDF I am really digging what they have done. They really cut down on the "fiddly" of the prior editions. I presume the monsters are retaining some of their 4e "lets make the system usable for the GM" focus as well. Overall, I am getting excited by this new version.

That is until I hit the Sleep spell. Its like they took all the fiddly and stuffed it into that spell - roll 5d8 and start subtracting current HPs of the critters. If cast right at the start of the fight it might not be bad (ok, you rolled 20, and each goblin has 4 HPs, so 5 go down). But ugh, messy if cast in the fight after some HPs have come off the totals.

But then thinking on it and reading it again this morning: Was Sleep written this way in the playtest? This spell is much more powerful than pre-4e (I did not play enough 4e to know how good it is). As long as a critter is not immune to Charm you just beat on it until it has around 20-30 HPs and Sleep it. No save. I did not see a Coup de Gras rule in the Basic, but even if the DM is strick that still means everyone can gather round and get a free attack on a prone sleeping creature. Kinda feels like an anticlimatic finisher for the BBEG. If I am understanding the magic rules, the Wizard could then just Sleep the beast again if it somehow still has HPs after the first attempt to finish it off (and they have an open slot).

(lets be honest with ourselves - one of the players will know the relative HP level of some of the big bad critters - I guess Giants will need their own Bag or Rats so the sleep spell knocks them out first ).

In the end, this might be OK as it keeps the Sleep relevant even at high levels. As a DM it would be fun to Sleep a high level party that is on the edge of a TPK and finish them off with a Sleep spell.


But otherwise 5e looks like a lean, mean system!

I really like the fact that it doesn't become useless at a higher level like in previous editions.

For the rest, I want to see how it works in practice. If it gets too powerful, I've been thinking for a long time about using a neat house rule: that Sleep would put the target into a conditional-sleep, that would immediately end if the target is attacked. Thus, you would use Sleep to bypass/end an encounter at best, but it would not allow you to cause a TPK or kill all enemies easily.

 

[Stalker0]

Just like 4th edition, Wizards are once again kings of religion over Clerics.

It makes sense in some ways, but its always been an eye brow raise for me. An easy house rule to make it INT or WIS though, certainly no deal breaker.

 

[Chaltab]

Death savings throws are not savings throws instead just a simple 10+ roll. I would imagine a CON save DC XX would have been better, at least if you were going to call it a savings throw...

That's not a new mechanic though, it's identical to how it was in 4th edition.

 

[Remathilis]

That's not a new mechanic though, it's identical to how it was in 4th edition.

Unfortunately, the definition of "saving throw" changed from 4th to 5th, thus making it a "saving throw" that doesn't obey the rules of other saving throws. So he's (probably) not objecting to the mechanic, just the terminology.

(Essentially, its a "flip a coin. Head you get better, tails you get worse. Repeat until you get three of one result")

 

[Thaumaturge]

Death savings throws are not savings throws instead just a simple 10+ roll. I would imagine a CON save DC XX would have been better, at least if you were going to call it a savings throw...

It's a save. It uses your "Death" stat. Most people have 10 (+0) in Death. Particularly hardy individuals may have higher.



Thaumaturge.

 

[jadrax]

It's a save. It uses your "Death" stat. Most people have 10 (+0) in Death. Particularly hardy individuals may have higher.

They should have put in on Comeliness...

 

[Remathilis]

They should have put in on Comeliness...

Comeliness affects death saves?

 

[Chaltab]

Unfortunately, the definition of "saving throw" changed from 4th to 5th, thus making it a "saving throw" that doesn't obey the rules of other saving throws. So he's (probably) not objecting to the mechanic, just the terminology.

A saving throw has been a d20+modifier since 3rd edition at least (not sure about earlier), it's just the source of the modifiers has changed. In 3E it was Fort/Ref/Will, in 4E the bonuses were only granted by powers or class features, and in DDN they bonuses are ability mods.

(Essentially, its a "flip a coin. Head you get better, tails you get worse. Repeat until you get three of one result")

Ah, technically it's a bit better than that. Pass on a 10 gives you 55% base odds, modified further by a critical failure being worth two failures and a critical success granting you 1HP.