D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: 03/28/2014

[Majoru Oakheart]

I was a big fan of this. Otherwise you're playing rocket tag. Waiting a bit meant you could learn more about your enemies and then fashion tactics to beat them. I wasn't the biggest fan of "victory before you touch the dice" (eg scry/buff/port strategies, etc) but I might be in the minority here.

Those don't have to be the 2 options. Rocket tag only exists if you have enough damage to kill enemies in one hit. That's the point of rocket tag, whoever first first wins because of the amount of damage being done.

You can know that Ogres have 32 hitpoints and AC 11. However, when your weapon has +5 to hit and does 1d8+3, you aren't going to kill it simply by going first.

I just found that when that same Ogre could have 250 hitpoints and an AC of 22 and there was no real way of telling which version of the Ogre you were up against made people hesitate way too long when a combat was designed to be nothing more than a speed bump:

PC 1: "4 Ogres, eh? Any of them might be solos or higher level than the others. I use my at-will power on the one on the right. I rolled an 18 and hit AC 30. I do 10 damage. Hmm, he didn't die, eh? That doesn't tell us much. He has an AC less than 30, which doesn't say much since I rolled so high. He didn't die with only 10 damage. But I rolled pretty low, so he could still have lots of health left. That didn't bloody him, did it? No...alright, he has at least 21 hitpoints total."

PC 2: "Yeah, just to be safe, I attack a different Ogre with an at-will...let's see how much damage that one can take."

DM: "Ugh, these things are 5 levels below the party. They each take about 2 encounter powers worth of damage each to kill. I expected 3 of them to die in the first round of combat."

Plus, I'd really just prefer combat end quicker so we can get back to the real part of the game.

 

[Klaus]

Sure, you can run into a named level 15 kobold, but that's not 4e does. It gives you a generic level 15 monstrous humanoid that you can use by the score. Which is what I would be trying to avoid if I wanted some semblance of progression as you level up.

At level 15, I would think that Giants would be good opponents, or maybe beholders or Mind Flayers. Meeting generic level 15 kobolds just doesn't do it for me. (I am also assuming any level 15 dwarves or elves I run into are named)

I do think we might be in agreement here though.

That is not really accurate.

When I did the 4e COunter Collections for Fiery Dragon, I illustrated every monster in all three MMs, and arranged them by level. Looking at the pages of counters really drove home the level separations of monsters. On page 1 you'd see kobolds and goblins, and by page 3 they were all gone. By page 5 you were seeing hobgoblins, and page 6 brought in the first orcs. By the time you reached paragon, you were seeing drow and githianky, but no run-of-the-mill humanoids.

The "levelling up" aspect was also reflected in the monster rules by the transition of monsters from regular to minion. When you're low-level, you're facing a regular ogre, and it takes a while to beat it. By the time you're in paragon, you're facing a much-higher-level ogre minion, which reflects how ogres are no longer a serious threat to you.

 

[D'karr]

which reflects how ogres are no longer a serious threat to you.

I agree but would make the following correction. Encounters with a single ogre are no longer a threat, or have "staying power". Encounters with hordes of ogres are still a threat as they can still do significant damage, but they can be mowed down rather appropriately. Just as they are supposed to be when you become much more powerful.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree with this. I like to have some idea of what monsters are capable of. "Goblins are weak creatures with some basic attacks that are fairly easy to defeat" makes them easy to categorize and understand.

Over the past few editions, they've suddenly become very complicated. In 3e, there was no way to tell if a goblin was CR1 or CR50 by looking at it. It could have a mix of any classes/templates/feats/spells in the game. It could function like almost any other monster in the game. The same thing was true about 4e to a lesser extent. This goblin could be one of 5 or 10 goblin subtypes with a vast array of abilities and could be lower or higher level if your DM scaled them. You didn't know what to expect when facing a goblin.

I prefer combats to be about informed tactics most of the time. You understand how goblins work and how they fight. Now, come up with a strategy to defeat them most effectively. I never really liked the fact that there was a "getting to know you" period at the beginning of most fights in both 3e and 4e where PCs would hold back their good attacks because they'd want to measure the skill of their enemies, get an idea of their capabilities and their tactics and then finally defeat them. Most of the time it only ended up making the battle take longer.

I agree that sometimes it's good to step out of the comfort zone and deal with something out of the ordinary. However, I'd prefer that to be the exception rather than the rule.

I guess it's a case of different expectations from the campaign world. I've never seen any reason why humanoid monsters should be less scaleable than playable humanoid races. If it's not surprising to see a level 15 elf or dwarf, then it shouldn't be surprising to see a level 15 kobold or goblin.

Yup. An NPC can encounter a PC who is "an elf". Does being an elf mean that the NPC will have even an approximate level of knowledge about the capabilities of the PC? Nope.

When the PCs see a human NPC is there any expectation of what that human is capable of if the PCs have never met him/her? Is there any reason a player should make assumptions about a goblin that they wouldn't make about a human?

Combats get drawn out usually because of bloated numbers. The problem isn't with careful players not wanting to dive headfirst into what could be a pool without water, its that something as ridiculous as a 250 hp ogre exists in the first place.

I don't think that I would enjoy a game that requires extreme metagaming and racial profiling in order for the action not to grind. Might as well give the players all the monster stats to review like in a videogame walk-through manual so that they can plan efficient strategy.

 

[MarkB]

Might as well give the players all the monster stats to review like in a videogame walk-through manual so that they can plan efficient strategy.

That's what Knowledge checks are for.

 

[pemerton]

The very most expensive light and medium armors (since they're removing the exotic ones) are 10 gp and 50 gp, respectively. Only players with the most incredibly stingy DMs or playing in the most resource-scarce campaigns won't have 50 gp to spend by the time they're 2nd or 3rd level. With magic items being optional and not typically for sale, what else are players going to spend their money on? There are few things players can buy in 5e that directly increase their character's power. Armor is one of those things, and that means it's going to be very high on every character's shopping list. Aside from heavy armor wearers, most PCs are going to be wearing the very "best" type of armor within their armor category by the time they're out of the apprentice tier (which only is supposed to take a couple sessions of play). Since all of those other types of armors are rendered completely irrelevant after such a short period of time, I have to question what point there is in even having them in the game at all.

I assume that padded armour is for peasants/mercenaries (ie it's part of worldbuilding rather than for PCs), and that hide armour is for druids (no metal).

That leaves leather for those PCs wanting light armour, and a choice between studded leather or scale for those wanting medium armour (with an AC vs Stealth trade-off).

It is only heavy which is stuck with a plethora of somewhat pointless armours. Ring mail might be better if it didn't give the movement penalty. Then ring and chain would offer a real choice, while banded and plate would be variants on more expensive splint.

there was no real way of telling which version of the Ogre you were up against

As [MENTION=40176]MarkB[/MENTION] noted, that it what Monster Knowledge checks are for.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Combats get drawn out usually because of bloated numbers. The problem isn't with careful players not wanting to dive headfirst into what could be a pool without water, its that something as ridiculous as a 250 hp ogre exists in the first place.

Both things contribute. I've definitely seen the effect of cautious players but I agree that 250 hp ogres cause a big problem as well.

I don't think that I would enjoy a game that requires extreme metagaming and racial profiling in order for the action not to grind. Might as well give the players all the monster stats to review like in a videogame walk-through manual so that they can plan efficient strategy.

To me it isn't so much metagaming as just staying within genre. In most fantasy stories, it's all pretty much the same. There's the human and human-like creatures who have civilizations and whose members include a wide variety of personalities, professions, skill levels, and expectations. That's why they are dangerous. You never know what you are going to get.

Then, there are the "monster races" which never seem to grow, learn, or gain too many skills. One goblins is like any other goblin: short, stupid, and feral. Most of these stories involve the idea that goblins aren't dangerous simply because they show no inclination to study for years on end and become wizards or aren't charismatic enough to lead a large group of their people in a large civilization or army. Periodically, there is a leader of extreme power and almost all the stories treat this as a horrible situation because of how rarely it happens and how dangerous goblins suddenly become if they were to be organized or trained.

I like the idea of monsters that aren't complicated to understand. "Goblins are stupid, violent creatures who live in the dark places" is easy to understand. "Goblins are creatures that show all the same complexity of emotion, intelligence, skill, cunning, organization, and fashion sense as humans" mean that they are complicated and messy and difficult to understand and deal with.

However, having said that, I don't think it requires metagaming or racial profiling at all to run quickly. You don't know what these creatures are but because they are so simple they can be understood quickly and easily. It doesn't take nearly as long to figure out all their moves and all of their capabilities.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

As [MENTION=40176]MarkB[/MENTION] noted, that it what Monster Knowledge checks are for.

Monster Knowledge checks could be an entire topic by themselves. I don't like them because they often become a replacement for roleplaying and feel artificial half the time. None of the editions have have very good rules for the kind of things you learn using monster knowledge checks. They also slow down combat because someone will inevitably ask for them even when they aren't necessary or add anything to the game.

This is the average use of them at my table in 4e:

DM: "You see 3 creatures who are green scaled, lizard-like humanoids who are carrying spears."
P1: "I use knowledge. What are they. 25!"
DM: "They are lizardfolk."
P1: "I rolled really high, what kind of powers and abilities do they have?"
DM: "You know they live in swamps, they organize together in bands, they use basic weapons like spears and they are good swimmers."
P1: "Yeah, but what are their powers?"
DM: "They attack with weapons, they don't have any powers."
P1: "The book clearly says I know all their powers. Also, I know their names. Are they all just Lizardfolk?"
DM: *sigh* No, one is a Lizardfolk Trapper, he uses a net to entangle people as his powers. These two are Lizardfolk Warriors and they use their Spears to knock people down and they fight well when beside each other."
P1: "He uses a net to entangle people? How does he do that? Does it target Reflex or AC? Is it ranged? How long is the range? Is it an AOE? The book says I get to know its powers."
DM: "I interpret that to mean that you know the general idea of how its powers work not that you get every number and the full details of every power."
P1: "What? It says I get to know its powers, that should mean I get to know everything about its powers."
P2: "Plus, you still haven't told us what their names are."
DM: "I'm not reading you the entire description of the creatures out of the monster manual. And I already told you their names. They are a Lizardfolk Trapper and Lizardfolk Warriors."
P2: "Their NAMES are Lizardfolk Warriors? Wow, their parents must have hated them. The book says you get to know their names if you roll high enough. Is it Joe or Bob or something? *laugh*"
DM: "Can we get back to playing the game now?"

This process gets repeated at the beginning of every battle and takes longer the more enemies there are as everyone in the group rolls their own individual knowledge checks against each monster separately to get an idea of how much THEIR character knows about the monster and to try to roll better than everyone else.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION]: In my game when the players make a knowledge check, I tell them the stuff that the rules tell me to tell them: the relevant flavour text plus the relevant stats (powers, immunities, vulnerabilities etc). This cuts out a lot of the back-and-forth and sighing that you describe in your post.

My personally experience is that the GM keeping the stats secret as a source of tension can be grossly overrated. I am coming more-and-more to favour the Burning Wheel approach (which 4e also inclines towards): when the players know that (for instance) it attacks with +X to hit for N dice of damage, they will experience the tension.

There are some cases where the surprise works - for instance when Calastryx grew an extra head! Whereas I don't see that it adds very much to the game to keep secret from the players whether a lizardfolk net attacks AC or Reflex.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

[MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION]: In my game when the players make a knowledge check, I tell them the stuff that the rules tell me to tell them: the relevant flavour text plus the relevant stats (powers, immunities, vulnerabilities etc). This cuts out a lot of the back-and-forth and sighing that you describe in your post.

The problem is, the book says "You know the powers of the creature". It doesn't say how much detail you know the powers in. The names of the powers are technically knowing the powers of the creature. It doesn't say "You know the bonus to hit and exact effect of all powers of the creature".

I tried to limit it to a basic idea of how the powers functioned in avoid metagaming. Metagaming being the act of using game mechanics that your character would have no awareness of to make decisions and thinking of the game AS a game. The DMG warns you against it and most of this information just has no parallel in the game world.

You might know that a lizardfolk carries around a net and uses it to trap people and they are good at throwing it. That seems perfectly acceptable for in game knowledge. He has a +16 to hit and it targets your reflex is a little out of the realm of what your character could know...or even understand.

My personally experience is that the GM keeping the stats secret as a source of tension can be grossly overrated. I am coming more-and-more to favour the Burning Wheel approach (which 4e also inclines towards): when the players know that (for instance) it attacks with +X to hit for N dice of damage, they will experience the tension.

To me it's partially about tension but mostly about immersion. Seeing the game from your character's eyes whenever possible.

I remember one of my very first games of D&D ever when I was still trying to get an idea of how this game worked. We were from the Forgotten Realms and we went through a portal to some other world. I was a Drow and we ran into some elves there who seemed extremely curious as to what kind of creature I was or what had happened to my skin since there was apparently no Drow in this world. The NPCs questioned me as to what happened to me. They talked to me directly and I was expected to answer as my own character.

It was one of the very first time that it kind of clicked for me. I was playing a character who actually lived in a world of living, breathing characters with their own personalities, likes and dislikes. They didn't know what Drow were because they lived in a world without them. I really felt at that moment that I WAS my character and this was actually happening to me. It was a weird feeling because although I was a massive gamer before then, I was never a roleplayer. It meant the game went beyond some numbers and rules to actually BE another world.

Ever since, I've continued playing to try to relive that feeling. Not all DMs are good enough to invoke it. But things like the exact stats of monsters tends to get in the way of that feeling.

There are some cases where the surprise works - for instance when Calastryx grew an extra head! Whereas I don't see that it adds very much to the game to keep secret from the players whether a lizardfolk net attacks AC or Reflex.

See above. It adds the feeling of immersion(at least hopefully it does). Your character is sitting around thinking "He's got a net, what is he going to do with it? How do I defend against it? I guess I'll find out as I fight it."

If the player is thinking "These creatures restrain people with their nets, but they have a 6 square range and attack Reflex. Since they only have +11 to hit, I know they'll miss me 90% of the time. I can pretty much assume they are useless and run directly towards them and kill them. Though, the Wizard should stay back as he'll be hit 70% of the time" then there is a disconnect between player and character which brings people out of the game.