D&D 5E D&D Podcast: A1 Playtest

[KidSnide]

I disagree with their assertion that a 10th level character should have an easier time avoiding the ghoul's effect than a 5th level. They should have an easier time dispatching a ghoul, as reflected by hit points, but a large group of ghouls should be terrifying to even a high level party precisely due to their paralyzing effects.

That doesn't sound right to me. As a 10th level fighter, I don't want to be terrified by a handful of 2nd or 3rd level monsters. (Facing 20 ghouls by myself, sure that's scary, but two or three shouldn't be a concern.)

Plus, it messes up the encounter building math. It's hard to calculate the difficulty of encounters when some times of lower level monsters (e.g. ghouls) stay dangerous longer than other comparable lower level monsters (e.g. bugbears).

-KS

 

[GX.Sigma]

Did anyone else catch what Mike said about "bennies" for players making mechanically suboptimal choices based on character personality traits? I've considered implementing a rule like this in my game, but I don't know how I feel about it as a core rule. It feels a bit too storygamey for my core D&D sensibilities.

 

[Gundark]

On Twitter this morning Mike Mearls was getting feedback about an idea he had which sounded like a variation of what 4e did with saves. although he credited 2e with the idea.

 

[GX.Sigma]

On Twitter this morning Mike Mearls was getting feedback about an idea he had which sounded like a variation of what 4e did with saves. although he credited 2e with the idea.

We have another thread on that. For what it's worth, it doesn't sound anything like the 4e system to me: the 4e system was just an actor-rolls version of the 3e system (attacks get better, defenses get better). The current playtest uses a broken version of the very same (only attacks get better). The system he's proposing is similar to the classic saving throws (only defenses get better).

If you're referring to what 4e called "saving throws" (the Pokemon flip a coin mechanic), that's a totally different thing and not really relevant.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

That doesn't sound right to me. As a 10th level fighter, I don't want to be terrified by a handful of 2nd or 3rd level monsters. (Facing 20 ghouls by myself, sure that's scary, but two or three shouldn't be a concern.)

Why not? What's wrong from a story, setting, or gameplay perspective with a monster always being dangerous, regardless of level? It makes sense to me that one could become very good at wrangling poisonous snakes while still being just as vulnerable to the poison.

Plus, it messes up the encounter building math. It's hard to calculate the difficulty of encounters when some times of lower level monsters (e.g. ghouls) stay dangerous longer than other comparable lower level monsters (e.g. bugbears).

-KS

Encounter building math is a tool to help predict the parts of an encounter that are predictable. But some things simply aren't predictable, and shouldn't be.

 

[JeffB]

"Interaction Roleplaying Mechanics...."


:facepalm:

 

[Warbringer]

"Interaction Roleplaying Mechanics...."


:facepalm:

i dont even know what that means ...

 

[JonWake]

It's funny, over on a certain other message board, all anyone can talk about is how much they like the idea. I've been running a Next game for the past month and I can say that the save mechanic is a little bit of an issue.

 

[Warbringer]

Listening to the podcast and reading ... I think, balancing monster level aside, maybe just trade 10hps, or whatever, for an autosave ... that way, back in a fight, high level doesn't care....

yeah, metagame, but so are saves.

 

[DonAdam]

I can't bring myself to have a strong opinion on saves until they sort out the basics of caster damage (including the role of cantrips vs low level spells) vs. fighter damage. As of now the difficult saves are the only thing keeping those low level spells relevant, which is an issue when high level spells are so strictly limited (which I like).