D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: 04/25/2014

[DEFCON 1]

Oh so very much this. The assumptions made about how PC vs. monster resources are viewed paint a very clear picture of combat as sport that just leaves me much less interested in the whole deal.

Expected "fights per day" is craptastic design at its very foundation and needs to go away.

And you as an individual DM are more than able to have that "craptastic" fights per day design go away. Nobody is saying you have to use it. It's there for everybody else who wants a pretty solid idea how many fights a party can go through with the resources they have. But if you want them easier or harder, go right ahead.

But if you're getting p.o.d because the designers are actually telling us how the numbers are set up so that these "fights per day" can be calculated... you need to stop reading these articles that talk about them. There's nothing wrong with keeping your head in the sand about the underlying design principles of the game if you don't like seeing how the sausage is made.

Cause if you don't think that every other edition had an underlying math, you're fooling yourself.

 

[Ichneumon]

CR doesn't bother me. When designing an encounter, I'll simply double the recommendations, and if a TPK is imminent, quickly invent a capture scenario.

 

[Li Shenron]

The biggest difference here and old school D&D is XP is pre-apportioned to each PC prior to the combat.

I mean, instead of that 1500 XP reward getting divvied up equally 3 ways, 500 XP each for everyone, the PC's XP rewards are apportioned by -character level-*. This means combats are still being thought of by default as custom designed. Something that older DMs will need to redesign the system out of.

Doesn't work like this.

XP budget is by PC level, XP reward is divided equally.

You might have one PC at level X contributing 500xp to the budget, and a second PC at level Y contributing 1000xp to the budget, and the total 1500xp is what you use to design the encounter. But then each PC gains 750xp for defeating the monsters.

 

[pemerton]

I don't see any indication of how they are going to handle the issues of action economy.
[MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION] seems to allude to the same issue, in characterising the 12 orc encounter as more dangerous than the dragon encounter.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't see any indication of how they are going to handle the issues of action economy.

[MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION] seems to allude to the same issue, in characterising the 12 orc encounter as more dangerous than the dragon encounter.

I'm not sure you can handle the action economy in rules, without making the rules too complex. The best solution was the "build solo monsters better" system. I first ran across that many years ago in a HERO system book of all things - it sounded to me like 4.0 had the right idea of it, even if they weren't always successful.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure you can handle the action economy in rules

<snip>

it sounded to me like 4.0 had the right idea of it

4e uses two dimensions of monster classification: level, which is a measure of attack and defence numbers; and "type" (solo, elite, standard, minion) which is a measure of hit points (4x level-standard; 2 x level-standard; 1 x level-standard; one-shot kills) and action economy.

The XP value of a monster is more-or-less proportiionate to level x type. Hence, from the XP value of a monster alone you can't tell how to use it in an encounter. You need to decompose that into level and type.

It sounds as if D&Dnext is going back to a single dimension of classification (CR/level/XP only, as a linear measure of attack and defence numbers, and also hit points).

 

[Iosue]

4e uses two dimensions of monster classification: level, which is a measure of attack and defence numbers; and "type" (solo, elite, standard, minion) which is a measure of hit points (4x level-standard; 2 x level-standard; 1 x level-standard; one-shot kills) and action economy.

The XP value of a monster is more-or-less proportiionate to level x type. Hence, from the XP value of a monster alone you can't tell how to use it in an encounter. You need to decompose that into level and type.

It sounds as if D&Dnext is going back to a single dimension of classification (CR/level/XP only, as a linear measure of attack and defence numbers, and also hit points).

Monsters may also be Legendary, and IIRC Elite was a possibility.

 

[pemerton]

Monsters may also be Legendary, and IIRC Elite was a possibility.

Has anything been said about how this factors into CR/XP?

 

[Iosue]

Has anything been said about how this factors into CR/XP?

Nothing specifically. In the Live Q&A, though, they noted that you could have both Legendary and Non-Legendary Beholders and Dragons, and IIRC, it was suggested that a Legendary Beholder might be similar to four regular Beholders. So I would not be surprised if Legendary creatures were given a higher CR and/or XP.

 

[pemerton]

In the Live Q&A, though, they noted that you could have both Legendary and Non-Legendary Beholders and Dragons, and IIRC, it was suggested that a Legendary Beholder might be similar to four regular Beholders. So I would not be surprised if Legendary creatures were given a higher CR and/or XP.

What I like about 4e-style elites and solos is that - via their action economy manipulation - they give you a solid encounter for 4e PCs that is different from just bringing in a heavy-hitter, who (in my experience, at least) is more prone to squashing one PC flat (via high to-hit and damage numbers) rather than inflicting typical-combat-worth of hurt across the whole party.

Hopefully these "legendary" creatures are going to be built along similar lines to 4e solos.