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

[GX.Sigma]

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.

The problem is more that the adventure puts them in a cave with narrow corridors and doorways where they have to fight intruders 1-on-1. Pretty hard to find non-terrible tactics (though that's a topic for a different thread).

 

[ArmchairReactionary]

It's basically an easier (difficulty and complexity-wise) d20 game. It's not nearly as fatal as my preferred models (O/AD&D) but overall I thought it was fine and would run it I'd someone were interested.
It's say the biggest potential mechanical exploit are backgrounds or traits or whatever they're called. But my players had no problem figuring the system, and I had a great solo run (lower lethality can advantage when running combat heavy modules from older editions).

 

[Mistwell]

The problem is more that the adventure puts them in a cave with narrow corridors and doorways where they have to fight intruders 1-on-1. Pretty hard to find non-terrible tactics (though that's a topic for a different thread).

Hmm, yeah it sounds like this might be a pregenerated adventure issue? Putting pack creatures in a narrow tunnel is like putting a dragon in a room not big enough to fly in.

 

[RevTurkey]

My advice for the OP...

Yes, get it played. I couldn't get a game of it going which was a shame but I was having fun with other games. Ignore the naysayers (myself included). Have fun and don't sweat the details because that is the current job of the WoTC design team...which I hope they do a good job of.

The idea that 1e and 2e are like holy grail, perfect systems of balance is nuts. They can be amazing and fun to play but they are riddled with nonsense and bad design. They are so far my favourite versions of the game but I always hope the next edition will recapture the flavour those games encouraged while tidying up some of the clunky nonsense that came with them.

This is a 'test' document. Don't get upset if it isn't very polished. Especially maths wise. I keep falling into this trap. Expecting that what I am seeing is a completed game. It isn't.

Save vs Death? Great. I don't like my D&D to be a pushover. Scare those players. Just give them a chance to escape and flee otherwise it can be unfair...forewarn them of what could happen if they continue towards that random roll character killer. Used sparingly and carefully these challenges can make memorable events in your campaigns and games. Remember D&D has ways to overcome these deaths with magic and you can always make the next game about a quest to return said petrified or killed character...

My big problem with the game were the human stat bonuses. That just keeps niggling me. The idea that throughout the play test they didn't think this was something that needed changing worried me. It made me think they were making poor design choices and lowered my confidence in what they were presenting. Overall though...I have played and had a great time with games that are nowhere near as well designed as the 5e test material.

So back to my original thought which was..just play it...have fun and ignore people like myself when they are being negative about what should be something enjoyable.

 

[Cybit]

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.

It has stayed freeform so far (running the newer adventures via D&D Encounters) - that's a pretty solid design decision they've made.

 

[Bigassgeek]

Thanks for all the advice and opinions so far, everyone. It's all appreciated.

Another question, which I think is appropriate for this thread: For those who've been playing for a while, what are your thoughts on using monsters from other editions with Next? I'm running Sunless Citadel, and there are a good number of creatures without Next stats. Think I can get away with running them as they are?

 

[sidonunspa]

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). So really playing the play test materials is pointless at this time..

Source or it didn't happen....

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..

Again, source or it didn't happen....

and yes, I think you are talking out of your butt here, I have seen zero evidence of what you have stated.. link or it never happened

 

[Ichneumon]

Thanks for all the advice and opinions so far, everyone. It's all appreciated.

Another question, which I think is appropriate for this thread: For those who've been playing for a while, what are your thoughts on using monsters from other editions with Next? I'm running Sunless Citadel, and there are a good number of creatures without Next stats. Think I can get away with running them as they are?

Monsters in most of the editions are reasonably easy to port across, with 4th Edition being the odd one out. One of the guys in my group was DMing an adventure with 1st edition creatures and doing OK. 3e creatures shouldn't pose too many problems, though there's a few things to be aware of.

• Only count armor and Dex (if applicable) to the creature's AC. You may wish to add a few points if it has a tough hide. Don't count the size modifier.
• Calculate its to-hit bonus by adding the appropriate stat adjustment (Str or Dex) to the proficiency bonus for its level (number of Hit Dice). For example, in the 3.5e Monster Manual, the shadow mastiff has Str 17(+3) and 4hd (+2 prof), giving it +5 to hit when converted to 5e. AC and to-hits are generally lower in 5e than in 3e.
• Use its ability scores for saving throws rather than Fort/Ref/Will. You may wish to add the proficiency bonus to one or two scores if it seems fitting. Also, rules for its special abilities such as "The save DC is Charisma-based" can be conveniently converted to saves against the given ability.
• 'Full Attacks', if significantly better than the normal attack, can be converted into recharge attacks.
• Feats can be ignored, or converted to extra damage/skills/AC/hit points.
• Skills can be adopted as-is without too much trouble. You could convert the bonuses to ability score mod + prof bonus if desired, but this is something to skip if short of time.