D&D 5E First Time DMing 5E - What Should I Look Out For?

[Mistwell]

Since the play test is over. I'd suggest you just go play 1E or 2E instead. Its much more balanced, tested, and overall a better game.

Come on man, he asked about it, lots of people are playing 5e and enjoying it, why would you crap the thread with that sort of response?

The monsters are push overs. You will have to adjust. For the most part you might just want to throw out their entire hit point totals and just track how many times they get hit and determine when you want them to fall. For instance kobolds will probably fall on the first hit no matter what, whereas an Ogre is probably going to take 10+ hits to drop.

Yeah, again, this does not match my experience at all. Not even a little. And we've been playtesting for over a year now.

Watch out for save or die and save or suck spells and monsters, they are riddled throughout 5E. Keep in mind its no fun for a player to die and have to create a new character because they rolled low on a dice.

Keep in mind this is your opinion, and you shouldn't speak for the entire universe of players out there.

Overall again, I'd just urge you to go play something else as 5E as it stands now is really rough and not even as well put together as the early editions of D&D...

And many MANY people disagree with your opinion on this.

 

[Mistwell]

Sorry, the play test is over D&D: Next doesn't exist, and won't likely look anything like the play test (at least according to the developers).

You've been asked to provide a source for this claim several times before, and you ignored those requests and go on to just repeat it. So, I am again calling BS on this claim. Put up or shut up. You get your opinion, but you don't get your own facts. You show me where any developer said or implied it will "not likely look anything like the playtest".

There is no arguing that 1E and 2E are better designed from monsters that are challenging, but not super deadly to dice rolls that make sense (ever been blinded, prone, and intoxicated in 5E? Yep you just have disadvantage once).

I am arguing it. Definitely, I am arguing it.

If you just want to see what the 5E play test was like, sure go play it, but you'll not be playing what will come out on shelves in summer 2014. That's just a fact.

Support your "fact" with evidence, or stop calling it a fact.

They will also run into all the problems I and others listed. That's also a fact.

It's really not. Like I said, I've been playtesting for over a year, and my experiences don't match yours at all. You seem quite fond of saying or implying your experiences are universal. It's myopic.

You will have character's die because a 1st level monster got a lucky shot in.

The death rules are very generous, and I doubt this. We've come close, but no party deaths so far, and the only time it was close is when the players did something stupid and took on something either too powerful for them, or when they were already too exhausted to do it.

Your players will slaughter just about any monster they come in contact with (short of the cheat feeling super bosses, if those made it into the last play test packet).

Wait you didn't even READ the last playtest package? So what the heck are you doing, commenting with authority on something you didn't even read?

Casters will dominate with spells (while never running out around 5th level or so).

This is hilarious, given others are complaining the casters were seriously nerfed in this edition.

They will destroy your carefully designed boss monsters with a single spell (something around a 20% save chance to make the save or die save on the monsters part). They will get mad when you use a creature with a save or die effect to take them out of the game with a single roll. These are all just facts you have to deal with.

Or rather, they are opinions he can ignore.

No point in playing the play test now...

Unless you want to, because you like it, like thousands of enjoyed it so far.

 

[Ichneumon]

There are several monsters that have instant death effects. Just thumb through the most recent bestiary. They are also not warned against using them in random encounters. Which means some DMs will make the mistake of throwing them out there and angering their players because instant death for no reason is never fun. (I played 2E for quite a while so I know what I'm talking about)...

I thumbed through the latest bestiary, and can't agree that it's as riddled with instant-death beasties as implied. The playtests have been directed at experienced players and DMs, who could be expected to treat instant death monsters judiciously. I fully expect proper caveats to be given in the released product.

First, there are three monsters that petrify: the basilisk, cockatrice, and medusa. Two grant an easy method to avoid their attack (which even novice players have a fair chance of guessing), They all need an afflicted PC to fail two low-DC saves, and all have low ACs (10-12) so killing them isn't a problem. While a PC may be unlucky in battle against these, the odds are actually in favour of them remaining unscathed.

Four other monsters are capable of killing a PC instantly: the beholder, the death knight (with a life-stealer), the mind flayer, and Asmodeus. Three of these are formidable opponents for mid-high level PCs, so are unlikely to be foisted on novice players. Asmodeus is, of course, the strongest monster in the bestiary. The beholder needs to lower a PC to 40hp before using the death ray, which will take a round or two of fighting (at least). The mind flayer needs to grapple its opponent first. The death knight wielding a life-stealer can kill a full-hp PC with an attack - about the only monster in the bestiary that can do so - but it has to be in melee range.

So, not counting Asmodeus, there are six monsters that might insta-kill your PC - not that many, really - and all of them have simple ways to counter their attack, or have to earn their chance to use their power in battle.

 

[Rhenny]

One thing I've found with D&D Next is that it is far easier to balance a game session with combat, exploration and interaction since combats can be designed to last anywhere from 10 minutes to 45 minutes depending on the encounter design.

With a number of shorter combat encounters, I've found that I can keep the pace of the story going and encourage players to roleplay/interact and explore more than when I load up on longer combat encounters. This is well suited for groups who love story and roleplaying.

That said, it is very easy to throw in a larger, set-piece encounter once in a while to change the pace, and for me and my group that seems to make it even more interesting and unpredictable.

This flexibility is a boon in my opinion.

So...advice...have more prepared for each session and don't feel as if you have to rush players along the way so that they will accomplish more. I've DMd and played 1 hour sessions, 2 hour sessions, 3 hour sessions and 4 hour sessions, and in each one, no matter how long, I've felt satisfied that the group accomplished something meaningful.

 

[grafikchaos]

Thanks everyone for the warm welcome!

What a lot of it boils down to is 5E is working very well with my group and our play style. If you don't like it, don't play it, stick with the edition you prefer.

I'm hoping that the design team keeps the system as free-form and loose as it is in the last playtest packet. It brought me back from a 10 year hiatus, and I couldn't be happier. The issues that people are having with it, while certainly valid, are easily dealt with in one way or another. The rules as written are excellent, and I'm looking forward to seeing it presented in a complete, sharp layout.

DMing it isn't hard at all. Encounters are built quickly and combat moves at a very nice clip. People can complain about the math, and the power of first level characters, and how bad these monsters suck, blah blah blah, but the fact is, DMing D&D has never been easier, and adjusting on the fly is a piece of cake compared to past editions.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Uh, none of that comports with my experiences playtesting these rules (though we have not used the Caves of Chaos or the minotaur).

It sounds like you have a DM who isn't utilizing the guidelines for challenges. And who is not using any wandering monsters to interrupt those one hour short rests.

There are definitely single monsters than can challenge the whole party, no question about it. And I've definitely challenged the part with 1st level monsters, like Kobold Dragonshields, Skeletons, and Zombies.

That's weird, because I've been DMing the playtest since literally the beginning. Granted, I haven't been creating any of the encounters (I've been running other people's adventures), but I have seen 5 first-level characters against 10 kobolds (an "average" encounter), and the players didn't take any damage at all. I've even seen 40 kobolds attack the fighter all at once (he survived and then killed them all).

The dragonborn roasts a bunch of them before the fight even starts, the cleric gives everyone +1d4 to hit, the bard gives everyone +1d4 to damage, the kobolds need to roll 17 on the die to even hit... all the odds are in the players' favor. And even if they go down to 0 hit points, the cleric can bring them back on their feet with a minor action. There is virtually no challenge in the game. The only way a character can die is from a massively overleveled enemy, or a death effect.

...In my experience, at least. Which is why I'm confused why your experience is so different from mine.

 

[Rhenny]

That's weird, because I've been DMing the playtest since literally the beginning. Granted, I haven't been creating any of the encounters (I've been running other people's adventures), but I have seen 5 first-level characters against 10 kobolds (an "average" encounter), and the players didn't take any damage at all. I've even seen 40 kobolds attack the fighter all at once (he survived and then killed them all).

The dragonborn roasts a bunch of them before the fight even starts, the cleric gives everyone +1d4 to hit, the bard gives everyone +1d4 to damage, the kobolds need to roll 17 on the die to even hit... all the odds are in the players' favor. And even if they go down to 0 hit points, the cleric can bring them back on their feet with a minor action. There is virtually no challenge in the game. The only way a character can die is from a massively overleveled enemy, or a death effect.

...In my experience, at least. Which is why I'm confused why your experience is so different from mine.

To add....combat can be very swingy. Initiative order and especially surprise can make a huge difference.

Monsters like Kobolds (with pack tactics) are more dangerous than they first appear especially if they swarm a PC because they each get +1 to hit (up to +5) for every ally attacking the same target. That can hurt. (If a PC is surrounded by 6-8 kobolds each does +6 to attack and 1d4+1 damage).

Zombie fortitude is also an ability that makes zombies more dangerous than they appear (and often makes the encounter drag on longer than expected). I've had some zombies stay on their feet for 2-3 extra rounds because they made their Con DCs.

Without a doubt, it is more dangerous when the PCs face 2:1 or 3:1 odds than if they fight even 1 higher level monster. Of course, spells like burning hands or thunderwave or even the Dragonborn's breath weapon are great for clearing out kobolds, but those are limited resources, so the next time the PCs face more foes, those resources may not be available.

With D&D Next, it is wise to focus design on PC goals, the adventuring day, multiple encounters rather than single encounters.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Without a doubt, it is more dangerous when the PCs face 2:1 or 3:1 odds than if they fight even 1 higher level monster.

This is part of the design philosophy I love--that being outnumbered actually matters.

 

[Mistwell]

the kobolds need to roll 17 on the die to even hit...

Yeah, given they get higher attack bonuses the more of them there are, either your DM used horrible tactics (almost had to do it intentionally, as even accidentally they'd have MUCH higher attack bonuses most of the time), or else he was not aware of the rules for how Kobolds work. With that many Kobolds, at least a few would have had upwards of a +6 to attack - the equivalent of a mid to high level monster, and a 50-50 hit or better against most first level ACs.

 

[Mistwell]

Monsters like Kobolds (with pack tactics) are more dangerous than they first appear especially if they swarm a PC because they each get +1 to hit (up to +5) for every ally attacking the same target.

Not for attacking the same target, for merely being within 5' of the target. They can be attacking a different PC, but as long as they are in 5' of the target, they grant the +1 attack bonus.

I just don't see how a 2 on 1 situation with 10 Kobolds couldn't result in a hit. I mean Kobolds are not dumb animals, they have an OK intelligence and wisdom, they know they do better when they swarm foes...so how does a pack of 10 not get better than rolling a natural 17 to hit a first level party?

First level armor classes should range from around 13 to 18. The Kobolds should be attacking with a +3 to +6 attack bonus. So they should need a range of about 7-15 to hit. They only way they'd need a 17 to hit, is if they literally have no allies nearby AND they are attacking one of the highest possible ACs in the game at first level.