D&D 5E Everything aboot 5E looks boring.

[Steely_Dan]

I like elites and solos in principle, but with monsters in such early incarnations they don't work properly so far

Work properly in what way?

 

[Steely_Dan]

Not a problem per se. They're just rather bland for the most part. (There are a few exception, granted). But, I also understand that this is a play test and some spicing up is forth coming. And as I think about it I'm sure some will remain bland because there's only so much you can do to, say dire rats. But I'm looking forward to the elites and solos making things interesting.

I think elite and solo could be a designation you apply to any creature, not a creature pigeonholed into the role.

 

[slobster]

Work properly in what way?

The to-hit bonuses are too low, and hp can be way too low. If you've run the blind ogre fight in Blingdenstone you know what I mean. He goes down way too fast, and there is never any palpable sense of danger despite fighting what should be a deadly battle against a physically dominating foe.

In my experience so far with 5E, fights against a lot of simple enemies (even far more than the encounter guidelines suggest) work out very well. The streamlined rules and monster stats make gameplay fast, while the sheer enemy numbers and their possible lethality (all they need is a few lucky rolls . . . ) make it dynamic, interesting, and suspenseful.

Small groups of even supposedly powerful enemies(elites), on the other hand, are dominated by the PCs advantage in the action economy. The enemies are too fragile to last long in a slugfest, and too simplistic and streamlined to give the fight any depth or excitement.

In my opinion, that's a major flaw in monster building so far. But it's a very early playtest, so I don't fault them for it. I'm sure they'll learn a few things from the playtest and give us more refined enemies in later iterations.

 

[Steely_Dan]

The to-hit bonuses are too low, and hp can be way too low. If you've run the blind ogre fight in Blingdenstone you know what I mean. He goes down way too fast, and there is never any palpable sense of danger despite fighting what should be a deadly battle against a physically dominating foe.

In my experience so far with 5E, fights against a lot of simple enemies (even far more than the encounter guidelines suggest) work out very well. The streamlined rules and monster stats make gameplay fast, while the sheer enemy numbers and their possible lethality (all they need is a few lucky rolls . . . ) make it dynamic, interesting, and suspenseful.

Small groups of even supposedly powerful enemies(elites), on the other hand, are dominated by the PCs advantage in the action economy. The enemies are too fragile to last long in a slugfest, and too simplistic and streamlined to give the fight any depth or excitement.

In my opinion, that's a major flaw in monster building so far. But it's a very early playtest, so I don't fault them for it. I'm sure they'll learn a few things from the playtest and give us more refined enemies in later iterations.

So, more HP and a +2 proficiency bonus might help (like in the first playtest)?

 

[slobster]

So, more HP and a +2 proficiency bonus might help (like in the first playtest)?

More hp and +2 to hit across the board would be a good thing to test. It wouldn't address all my problems with elite design, as I think complexity should still be upped and their action economy should be adjusted. Doubly so for solos.

But you're right, that would be my first step if I were houseruling the playtest packet.

 

[Scylla]

All I was countering was that "they can't take your books away" is not a valid statement for those of us who rely on DDi to prep and run the game.

Therein lies the rub.

And that also lies at the heart of my firm suspicion that a decent subset of 4e fans criticizing DDN don't want a new edition at all, merely a 4.5e. Anything more than a cleaned-up 4e means that DDI 4e support will, sooner or later, vanish.

The only semi-constructive criticism I can offer is that it feels like a bunch of guys sitting around the kitchen table writing down a bunch of random house rules hoping that a coherent game will evolve.

Yeah, I've also been getting that "let's throw lots of spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks" feeling at times, unsettlingly.

 

[Steely_Dan]

More hp and +2 to hit across the board would be a good thing to test. It wouldn't address all my problems with elite design, as I think complexity should still be upped and their action economy should be adjusted. Doubly so for solos.

But you're right, that would be my first step if I were houseruling the playtest packet.

Cool, I was thinking a Solo dragon could move, claw you, move, claw someone else, move, bite someone, move, breath weapon and/or spell cast, all in the the one turn (and maybe Tail Slap someones's ass as a Reaction).

Oh, and wing buffets.

 

[slobster]

Cool, I was thinking a Solo dragon could move, claw you, move, claw someone else, move, bite someone, move, breath weapon and/or spell cast, all in the the one turn (and maybe Tail Slap someones's ass as a Reaction).

Oh, and wing buffets.

Something along those lines sounds good for a dragon. Something that needs careful calibration (in this specific case, but also for solos/elites/normal mobs in general) is making sure that your monster can legitimately threaten an entire party, but isn't able to use that to focus fire and carve a single PC into meaty slivers in a single round. Mechanics like breath weapons are excellent for that, as they can affect the whole party but can't be condensed to nuke a single character. AoE's in general are like that. Stacking too many physical attacks on a single target can be problematic, but then you can juggle the math and throw in some other options to make it work.

All of this is stuff the system will have to address some day, but they don't seem to have started yet, as they've been focused on PC design and core mechanics for the system.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Which would be?

"Magical items are part of the story, not the math." (They are part of the math, and pretending they're not is just a return to the ambiguities of yore.)

Rolling stats is default. Rolling hit points is an option.

Classes don't have a common AEDU structure. (Yeah I know 4e already regressed this way; I don't play or allow E classes.)

As well as various other minor regressions, which aren't worth mentioning because I'm okay with not liking 5e. I don't need the temptation to drop ~$90 on a new edition. And yeah I know 5e is all about a little bit of every edition and modularity, but why compromise when I can keep playing 4e?

Not a fan of this "flat math" stuff either, though this is the closest thing to innovation that 5e's got from what I know.

 

[Steely_Dan]

1) "Magical items are part of the story, not the math." (They are part of the math, and pretending they're not is just a return to the ambiguities of yore.)

2) Rolling stats is default.

3) Classes don't have a common AEDU structure. (Yeah I know 4e already regressed this way; I don't play or allow E classes.)

4) Not a fan of this "flat math" stuff either, though this is the closest thing to innovation that 5e's got from what I know.

1) I don't see how having an extra +1 to +3 due to DM discretion is ambiguous.

2) Not true, you can take default array.

3) Well, that's personal, and 4th Ed specific, after DMing 4th Ed for 10 sessions or so, I grew to despise the AEDU format.

4) I love it, no more +37 to hit and such malarkey,