D&D 5E First experience with 5th edition and Lost Mines of Phandelver (no spoilers)

[Imaculata]

I won't pay for an adventure that has the map of an inn or tavern in it. There are thousands of them on the internet. I think it's an awful waste of space in a published adventure. I prefer having maps of where the heroic adventure can be found and typically it's not in the inn.

Well, what about just a description and a name for the local inn or tavern? That would be easy to include. Or perhaps a map of the local town? Or some descriptions of town folks that the players might encounter? What about just some example maps of an encounter that the DM can throw in whenever he feels like it?

I don't think campaign modules need to confine themselves to just the one road and the end goal. What if the players want to hang out in town a bit, and talk to people? These sort of modules feel like they intend to restrict that sort of freedom, and I think it sets a bad example for new DM's.

 

[robus]

Something that bugged me in LMoP was the suggestion that blinding a creature was a way to defeat it, but no advice on how to adjudicate something like that during combat. I ended up hand-waving it. But in a "teaching" adventure like LMoP it would have been good to see some advice on how to handle a situation like that. There was precious little education in there. Compared to the starter adventures for FFG's SW RPGs it's pretty poor.

 

[robus]

Well, what about just a description and a name for the local inn or tavern? That would be easy to include. Or perhaps a map of the local town? Or some descriptions of town folks that the players might encounter? What about just some example maps of an encounter that the DM can throw in whenever he feels like it?

I don't think campaign modules need to confine themselves to just the one road and the end goal. What if the players want to hang out in town a bit, and talk to people? These sort of modules feel like they intend to restrict that sort of freedom, and I think it sets a bad example for new DM's.

I don't think LMoP did too bad a job of that. Phandalin has a map and various named key NPCs in the town. There are lots of other issues (namely missing/weak motivations for some key NPCs) but your issues seem covered at least? But perhaps you were making a larger point?

 

[Imaculata]

I don't think LMoP did too bad a job of that. Phandalin has a map and various named key NPCs in the town. There are lots of other issues (namely missing/weak motivations for some key NPCs) but your issues seem covered at least? But perhaps you were making a larger point?

Yes,I was. My point was that I think some of these modules could benefit from including more than just the bare bones of the adventure. I think LMoP does an okay job as a starter adventure, but it seemed like our novice DM seemed very nervous whenever there was even the slightest hint that one of our players might go off script.

I don't think there's any need for even a new DM to be afraid of players straying off the written path, but I think it is a result of the way in which these modules are written. I think if the modules were written more openly, and less linear, DM's would have more freedom within the confines of the campaign. And a way to accomplish that, would be by including more stuff that you might not even end up using, but that would be there in case you need it.

 

[KahlessNestor]

The module has a fairly simple way to keep the characters on task. Remind them repeatedly they have a dear friend in the hands of goblins. They shouldn't be going wandering around too far off script. The script is plenty sandboxy in chapters 2 and 3. My players were so on task they skipped a lot of XP and I was worried they weren't high enough level.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[iserith]

Well, what about just a description and a name for the local inn or tavern? That would be easy to include. Or perhaps a map of the local town? Or some descriptions of town folks that the players might encounter? What about just some example maps of an encounter that the DM can throw in whenever he feels like it?

I don't think campaign modules need to confine themselves to just the one road and the end goal. What if the players want to hang out in town a bit, and talk to people? These sort of modules feel like they intend to restrict that sort of freedom, and I think it sets a bad example for new DM's.

I think most of what you say above is included in the adventure if I remember correctly. Though I can't say I share your enthusiasm for adventures that involve a lot of NPC interviewing and mucking about town. In fact, I hate that kind of game generally. Even LMoP was pushing it a bit with the amount of town content in my view. I want to be a bold adventurer confronting deadly perils. And while a town can be a backdrop for that sort of thing, most town adventures as I see them run are errand-running and talking to the DM's quirky, cagey NPCs. No thanks!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I disagree with that last sentence. I don't think they are doing two very different specific things. Yes, the focus of 5th edition seems to be simplicity and accessibility. But when you look at the actual rules, I don't notice a big difference. It feels too much the same.

But see, that's the point I'm making is that you aren't seeing the way it was designed to be different because you are looking at it as 3e with missing parts. Since my just saying that doesn't provide any information, let me give you some examples of where 5e intentionally did things different in an attempt to hit a different goal.

Fewer but Bigger Bonuses. In 3e you tended to get small features that made it more likely you could accomplish certain things. 5e ripped most of those out. Instead of incremental increases to likelihood of accomplishing things usually they just gave you advantage. For example, let's take a dwarf's miscellaneous bonuses (all quotes are from the respective SRDs):
3e
"Stability: A dwarf gains a +4 bonus on ability checks made to resist being bull rushed or tripped when standing on the ground (but not when climbing, flying, riding, or otherwise not standing firmly on the ground).
+2 racial bonus on saving throws against poison.
+2 racial bonus on saving throws against spells and spell-like effects.
+1 racial bonus on attack rolls against orcs and goblinoids.
+4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against monsters of the giant type. Any time a creature loses its Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class, such as when it’s caught flat-footed, it loses its dodge bonus, too.
+2 racial bonus on Appraise checks that are related to stone or metal items.
+2 racial bonus on Craft checks that are related to stone or metal."
5e
"Dwarven Resilience. You have advantage on saving throws against poison, and you have resistance against poison damage.
Tool Proficiency. You gain proficiency with the artisan’s tools of your choice: smith’s tools, brewer’s
supplies, or mason’s tools. Stonecunning. Whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to the origin of stonework, you are considered proficient in the History skill and add double your proficiency bonus to the check, instead of your normal proficiency bonus."

I think we would both agree that neither is better, it's just a matter of preference. But I think it represents a different design philosophy, not just gutting details. For instance, I see it as more flavorful this way. But this particular point has been discussed by others for pages, so I want to move on to others.

Impactful Features. Related but distinct from the previous element, 5e tends to make each feature it gave count and count big. Usually, they straight up let you do something you otherwise can't do at all--and frequently something that no one else in the game (or almost no one else) can do.Let's take another race as an example, halflings. Here are a relevant subset of features:
3e
+2 racial bonus on Climb, Jump, and Move Silently checks.
+1 racial bonus on all saving throws.
5e:
Halfling Nimbleness. You can move through the space of any creature that is of a size larger than yours.
increases by 1.
Naturally Stealthy. You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
Lucky. When you roll a 1 on the d20 for an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll.

Examples of class features include:
Evasion. 5e Evasion in 3e's Improved Evasion.
Extra Attacks. Instead of decreasing attack bonuses for additional attacks, Extra Attacks are at full bonus. And you can split up your move however you want between, before, and after those attacks, with no need to take a Full Attack action with limited movement to use them.
Defensive Roll. All rogues get the equivalent of this at 5th level, but it always works and is usable once per round.
Cantrips. They are cool, and you can cast them atwill rather than messing with 0th-level spell slots. (Some people, myself included, would have liked a bit of an adjustment to how this works, but I never claimed the system was perfect. They are impactful.)

Uber Feats. 5e feats aren't the same as 3e feats. In fact, the conversion guidelines document has this to say about them: "In the conversion process, feats from third and fourth edition should usually be ignored, because feats in fifth edition have a very different place in the game than the feats did in those two editions. Feats in fifth edition can make a character concept come to life outside the race and class structures. Give the fifth edition feats a look if you feel your character lacks a needed aspect after you convert race and class." If I might add a note, a 5e feat is worth about three 3e feats, or sometimes even a couple epic level 3e feats.

Intentionally Highlighted Complexity. For a place where complexity was actually added, look no further than the delightful Battle Master Fighter sub-class. It gets a whole set of maneuvers that work well. And all fighters are upgraded with cool features like Second Wind and Action Surge. And just in case you want even more customization for you fighter, then get 7 feats compared to most other classes 5. 5e fighter makes 3e fighter look like 3e warrior NPC class.

Actions that Actually Work. In 3e, if you wanted to grapple you had to risk an opportunity attack. Then, assuming you weren't hit, you had to make a touch attack roll. Then assuming that hit, you had to make an opposed check. And even if you took the feat, it only eliminated the opportunity attack and gave you a +4. In 5e, you just make a single opposed check, no penalty. Same goes with tripping and bull rushing in 5e. Non-specialized characters actually use these interesting and dynamic options in 5e, because they can actually succeed. And if you want to be even better at them, Battle Masters and Monks have the ability to piggy-back improved versions of those sorts of thing on top of a fully damaging attack.

I don't criticize 5th edition for not having all the number crunching of 3rd edition. I criticize it for being too similar to 3rd edition, and not fixing the flaws in D&D that have been there since day 1.

Not fixing flaws is a reasonable criticism. However, this was also intentional. The designers play games other than D&D. They are well aware of remnants of 70s and 80s design that were abandoned by most other RPGs. They kept them intentionally for purposes of attracting players of prior editions who wanted to play something that felt like D&D rather than a new game with the D&D label slapped on it. Although this is a reasonable criticism of preference of 5e, I'm not sure it is a relevant comparison with 3e.

If you're going to release an edition that feels almost identical to previous editions, but with less in it, then that is not an improvement in my opinion.

Hopefully I've given you some examples of how it is intended to play differently than 3e, rather than to be a simplified version of it. (It is, in general, intended to be simpler version of D&D, but not a simpler version of 3e.)

While we were playing, I noticed that our novice DM was very anxious that we might stray off the beaten path. I can't blame him, because the module gives you literally nothing to work with in case that happens. I think they could easily include more material to flesh out the surrounding area, so a DM does not need to panic.

Yep, if I didn't already have a bunch of information about that region of the Forgotten Realms I would have been in continuity trouble when the party decided to go to Neverwinter to find a cleric to consult with.

 

[Valetudo]

I dont see how anyone could compare a 3rd edition fighter to a 5th and say they are the same but with less stuff.

 

[Imaculata]

I dont see how anyone could compare a 3rd edition fighter to a 5th and say they are the same but with less stuff.

I don't see how you would think that anyone was comparing a 3rd edition fighter to a 5th edition fighter.

But see, that's the point I'm making is that you aren't seeing the way it was designed to be different because you are looking at it as 3e with missing parts. Since my just saying that doesn't provide any information, let me give you some examples of where 5e intentionally did things different in an attempt to hit a different goal.

Well, let me say up front, thanks for getting into so much detail. See, I only played a little low level 5th edition. So many of the things you mention are aspects of the game that I did not yet get to experience.

5e:
Halfling Nimbleness. You can move through the space of any creature that is of a size larger than yours.
increases by 1.
Naturally Stealthy. You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.
Lucky. When you roll a 1 on the d20 for an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll.

Now I will admit that does sound different. I think I got the impression that it felt very much the same, because of the way saves, skills, armor class and attacking work.

Actions that Actually Work. In 3e, if you wanted to grapple you had to risk an opportunity attack. Then, assuming you weren't hit, you had to make a touch attack roll. Then assuming that hit, you had to make an opposed check. And even if you took the feat, it only eliminated the opportunity attack and gave you a +4. In 5e, you just make a single opposed check, no penalty. Same goes with tripping and bull rushing in 5e. Non-specialized characters actually use these interesting and dynamic options in 5e, because they can actually succeed. And if you want to be even better at them, Battle Masters and Monks have the ability to piggy-back improved versions of those sorts of thing on top of a fully damaging attack.

This might actually be a direct improvement to the grapple system. We didn't get into grapple rules during our sessions, but it is interesting to read about this. Third edition grappling has always been a bit clunky.

Not fixing flaws is a reasonable criticism. However, this was also intentional. The designers play games other than D&D. They are well aware of remnants of 70s and 80s design that were abandoned by most other RPGs. They kept them intentionally for purposes of attracting players of prior editions who wanted to play something that felt like D&D rather than a new game with the D&D label slapped on it. Although this is a reasonable criticism of preference of 5e, I'm not sure it is a relevant comparison with 3e.

I can understand why they did it, and considering the backlash they got with 4th edition, they have every reason to keep some of the oddities of D&D in the game. But still, it's the type of missed opportunities that keep me searching for a system that is more realistic in its portrayal of combat.

Hopefully I've given you some examples of how it is intended to play differently than 3e, rather than to be a simplified version of it. (It is, in general, intended to be simpler version of D&D, but not a simpler version of 3e.)

You have, and thanks for your most informative and detailed description. I should stress that my impression of 5h edition was but a first impression, as we didn't get to play at higher levels. So some of the stuff you explained are things we did not get to experience during our sessions.

Of course some people might be wondering at this point, has this changed my mind about 5th edition? Well... yes and no. It sounds different, and in the case of grapple rules it even sounds like a minor improvement. But did it feel different? No, it played pretty much the same way. But like I said, I only got to play a few sessions of low level Lost Mines of Pandelver with a newb DM. So it's merely a first impression.

 

[Jediking]

Once you've got Advantage you can't improve your odds any more, so there's no incentive to do things in a rote, cookie-cutter way that stacks the best bonuses. It frees up your narrative space.

I use two things to change the odds: Advantage/Disadvantage as usual, or a +/-2 bonus if it isn't as drastic. (I don't usually do Advantage with +2 or Disadv. with -2, I'd either let it automatically succeed or fail).

The +/-2 is usually a relevant tool bonus to a check or an environmental effect like cover. I like the Cover rules and use that as a basis for other static bonuses, but try to keep them consistent and situational to keep bounded accuracy and maintain narrative space. And all this is just my home style, so isn't consistent with 5e RAW.