D&D 5E First Basic Game: Fun With Backgrounds (And Not Much Else)

FireLance

Legend
[SBLOCK=Disclaimer For 5e Fans]The OP is a snarky 4e fan, and it shows. Read at your own risk! The post contains several unfavorable comparisons of 5e to 4e, and may cause symptoms such as nerd rage, telling the OP that he doesn't understand 5e, telling the OP that he should play 4e instead, and accusing the OP of trolling. The OP is not responsible for any consequences arising from failing Intelligence saves, Wisdom saves or Sense of Humor checks.[/SBLOCK]So, the weekend after the Basic 5e rules were released, my old gaming group got together to play. We'll get to the actual races and classes after a while, but I mostly remember the adventuring party as The Soldier, The Folk Hero, The Criminal and The Sage. (They provide ... leverage.)

Backgrounds were probably the highlight of the evening, as The Soldier got Inspiration for experiencing PTSD after hearing what was apparently the sound of a child in trouble, and The Folk Hero also got Inspiration for deciding to go back and put to rest a family of farmers that had been animated as zombies (The Soldier did so, too, for a reason that I can't remember at the moment).

Apart from that, however, very little else stood out about the characters. The Criminal was a wizard because he spent most of the adventure casting either ray of frost or magic missile (and mage armor at the start of each adventuring day, after which he would recover the spell slot). The Folk Hero was a rogue because he attacked enemies at range and in melee and occasionally asked the DM if he had sneak attack. The Soldier was a fighter because he attacked enemies in melee and didn't ask about sneak attack. The Sage was a cleric because it said so on his character sheet (more on that later).

Races were less obvious, but for the record, The Soldier, The Folk Hero and The Criminal were humans and The Sage was an elf.

So, first the positive bits. Backgrounds, and their associated personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws, made great role-playing hooks. They are also mostly system-neutral, so I can import them pretty much wholesale into any edition of D&D, including 4e.

However, what I found to be the biggest flaw in Basic 5e (at least, from the play experience in my first game) was this: I was playing an elven cleric, and it didn't feel like I was playing a cleric, or an elf.

Perhaps it was because I was playing in conservative, my-spells-should-only-be-used-when-we-really-need-it mode, but my decision tree for the adventure can pretty much be summarized as follows:

1. Are we in enough trouble that I need to use a daily spell slot? (The answer was usually no.)
2. If no, do the creatures we are fighting seem to be resistant or immune to piercing damage? (The answer was usually no.)
3. If no, fire my light crossbow. (Firing a light crossbow is usually better than casting sacred flame.)
4. Repeat.

4e has been criticized for having "yo-yo hit points", but the fact that one or two PCs would normally drop to half hit points or less in a standard fight meant that healers had plenty of opportunities to heal.

Encounter powers, even at low levels, gave you some scope to vary your actions in a fight, and class and racial encounter powers had the additional benefit of helping to emphasize your class and race about once per fight or so.

Well, the DM asked us to level up to 2nd level, and we'll be playing again this weekend, so The Sage will now have an encounter power and one more daily 1st-level spell slot. Will this make a difference?

(To be continued ...)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Teataine

Explorer
Can you say what adventure you're playing/what monsters you're fighting.

If it's Phandelver, supposedly it gets harder fast. If you're using playtest monsters (since there aren't any in Basic yet) they are notably underpowered. It seems like your party was just under no pressure at all at amy point. Recovering spells slots as routine, not casting (daily) spells etc.
 

FireLance

Legend
Can you say what adventure you're playing/what monsters you're fighting.

[SBLOCK=Spoiler!]My DM ran "The Wizard's Amulet", but he adapted part of it. There was a fight against two leucrotta, another against four skeletons, and a final encounter with two orcs followed immediately by five zombies.[/SBLOCK]

It seems like your party was just under no pressure at all at amy point. Recovering spells slots as routine, not casting (daily) spells etc.
The adventure was basically a week-long escort mission and the fights came at us one per day, so we had a long rest after each fight. Hence, in conservative mode, I ended up casting almost no spells.
 

MintMMs

First Post
I'm thinking that you're using an older set of monsters. The current goblins have 7 hp (2d6) and orcs average 15 (2d8+6).

In our run through of the first act of Phandelver, we had one death and 3 other characters on their death saving throws throughout the session. There was plenty of "I'm down to 2 hp, we need to get out of here" going on. It was glorious!
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
Agreed -- your spoiler is really not needed (though I appreciate the warning, in case it was. There's nothing rabid in war you post).

Backgrounds are one of the great virtues of 5th, and you rightly saw their importance. This is a feature, even if it has been dialled back a little bit from the play test.

With only one encounter per day, using underpowered monsters, it makes perfect sense that you found combat underwhelming.

You made the choice not to use sacred flame rather than the crossbow; totally legit, but it is a choice that reinforces your conclusion -- the spell was never going to run out, it was just a preference you had to not do a core cleric thing that you had available.
 

So, the weekend after the Basic 5e rules were released, my old gaming group got together to play. We'll get to the actual races and classes after a while, but I mostly remember the adventuring party as The Soldier, The Folk Hero, The Criminal and The Sage. (They provide ... leverage.)

:lol:
 

1of3

Explorer
So, maybe you wan to play the game at a higher level? The level 1 characters are beginners at what they. I think level 4 is similar to level 1 in 4e.

When 4e was announced there was lots of nerd rage. One complaint I found meaningful: 4e got rid off super squishy low levels. For people who like that style (or having their characters grow out of these levels), 4e didn't work. The other way now, is rather simple: Start at higher level.
 

BryonD

Hero
I was playing an elven cleric, and it didn't feel like I was playing a cleric, or an elf.

Perhaps it was because I was playing in conservative, my-spells-should-only-be-used-when-we-really-need-it mode, but my decision tree for the adventure can pretty much be summarized as follows:

1. Are we in enough trouble that I need to use a daily spell slot? (The answer was usually no.)
2. If no, do the creatures we are fighting seem to be resistant or immune to piercing damage? (The answer was usually no.)
3. If no, fire my light crossbow. (Firing a light crossbow is usually better than casting sacred flame.)
4. Repeat.
IMO, anyone who would present their issue this way is not going to enjoy 5E by core RAW. (re-tooled 5E could be a completely different matter).

Before the 4E collapse I frequently found myself commenting to 4E fans that "roleplaying is not between the covers of a book". I do think the 4E style caters much better to this approach of feel descending from the mechanics. (I'm not claiming the reverse it true. Liking 4E does not mean that you are therefore part of this style).

You've framed the post in terms that suggest negative feelings towards being told to play 4E. I'm not going to tell you what to play, but there is nothing wrong with not liking something, and there is nothing wrong playing what you like. A modified 5E should be able to achieve that, but if 4E is better for you than any version of 5E, then so be it.
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
FireLance said:
The adventure was basically a week-long escort mission and the fights came at us one per day, so we had a long rest after each fight. Hence, in conservative mode, I ended up casting almost no spells.

Yeah, can't say I'd have a dramatically different experience in 4e with this kind of adventure (especially as a Leader, in conservative mode).

"Oh, no one's bloodied? Mokay, at-will, at-will, at-will, are we done yet?"

Sounds like the DM probably misjudged the challenge. Which is understandabe, what with the not-quite-final monster rules and whatnot.
 

FireLance

Legend
With only one encounter per day, using underpowered monsters, it makes perfect sense that you found combat underwhelming.
You may be right.

You made the choice not to use sacred flame rather than the crossbow; totally legit, but it is a choice that reinforces your conclusion -- the spell was never going to run out, it was just a preference you had to not do a core cleric thing that you had available.
The key reason for that was that based on my reading of the rules, I got to add my Dexterity modifier to damage with a light crossbow, but I didn't get to add my Wisdom modifier to damage with sacred flame. That made attacking with the light crossbow almost always the superior choice.
 

Remove ads

Top