D&D 5E Fixing the Fighter

Then why call it D&D?


Maybe you missed my post just a few points up thread...

Because, just because you don't feel it works well for X, doesn't make it universally so.

Let me make this clear - further attempts to classify any particular edition as "not D&D" is apt to get people a vacation. You're free to not like it. You're free to talk about what you find to be a game's strengths and weaknesses. But these attempts to shove one or another edition out of the fold will be taken to be edition warring.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


More constructively: why does 4e work poorly for dungeoneering and how can it be improved for such?
It doesn't work well for AD&D-style dungeoncrawling because of the set-piece nature of encounters. Basically, random encounters and fights with 2 orcs don't work very well. See: Keep on the Shadowfell.

I've used plenty of dungeons, though, myself - they just work better if they are somewhat shorter or subdivided into zones. Lost temples, monstrous lairs, trap-filled crypts... They work fine, but you can't write them as if you're playing 1e. (Well, you can, but results will vary.)

-O
 

4e can't handle realistically proportioned dungeons.

Given that a typical realistically proportioned medieval dungeon would consist of a single moderately sized chamber accessed via a trapdoor in the floor above, and would contain no monsters (beyond a possible assortment of rats, lice, and other minor creepy-crawlies), no secret passages, and absolutely no treasure, I think perhaps that "realistic" is not the term you're aiming for.
 

Then why call it D&D?

Plenty of folks have played an enormous amount of D&D and rarely been in the dungeon. They were still playing D&D.

That being said, I don't agree that it doesn't do dungeoncrawls well. Does it do them differently than 1e? Yes. Encounter focused design does change the way you need to frame your play to a degree. Can you still have strategic play? Yes. Can you still have extra-encounter exploration play? Yes. Can you still have ridiculously deadly play? Yes.

My level 13 players were in a long-abandoned, haunted, dwarven sanitarium/madhouse (a dungeon) in the Underdark. It was filled with tortured, angry spirits and spooks. A Derro clan had taken up residence here centuries ago and used it as a base of operations to raid a neighboring deep gnome settlement. The PCs were looking for the skeletal remains of a mad dwarf who died here long ago. He was born with Hydrocephalus (a rare condition that made his head grotesquely large and made him mentally disabled) so they had means to verify the skeletal remains. He swallowed a key (that allegedly remained in his guts/plumbing), which they desperately needed, when he was a little boy.

The lost/tortured spirits perceived the Derro as their Dwarven caretakers so they were not hostile toward them. But oh were they hostile toward the PCs. This allowed for a nice diversity of enemies to challenge the PCs.

The sanitarium itself had several large wings, all filled with natural hazards due to the degradation of the edifice wrought by age. It was also filled with a motley assortment of terrible and devious traps laid by its Derro occupants. I wanted this to be truly deadly so I made the level of the dungeon a lvl + 4 (I typically make it a lvl + 2 or 3). There was plenty of 1e, operational exploration of long, dark corridors; light-blazing tokens in hand, jumping at sounds beyond their sight, looking for hidden chambers or fissures to circumvent potential dangers, rogue spoiling tripwires and navigating pressure plates (or not), attracting undue attention and dashing escapes, and ultimately barricading themselves into rooms when they needed a rest and things got too hairy. Plenty of this was extra-encounter play. I had a debilitating Disease/Condition Track that the PCs suffered from due to the constant exposure to the spooks and haunts supernatural wailing and moaning and the general haunted ambiance of the sanitarium. And I also made plenty of use of Skill Challenges for specific things (dashing escapes, easing the ire of the restless dead and ultimately putting them at rest, setting traps of their own, and an extended SC to locate the burial chamber and the body by way of etched tablets used as charts, ancient runes, and after they verified the body and found that the key wasn't there, they located his overseer's chart/diary and found the location of the key).

One moment was extremely fun. The PCs were way over their heads. In the common area, they had been waylaid by a Roper, fought off (and put to rest - mini Skill Challenges within the combat) several haunted spirits, and 2 waves of Derro that were alerted by the noise. The Derro kept coming. This was clearly TPK territory. The PCs fight their way out of the room to a choke point, the Druid summons a Large Croc to hold the chokepoint for a few rounds, the Bladesinger uses Arcane Gate to port them 100 ft down the passage, and off they go: Dashing Escape Skill Challenge! They gained very narrow success in the Skill Challenge. The last check of the Skill Challenge was them securing a room at the top of stairwell (with that door being the only visible entrance/egress. There was a large pile of rubble in the room with sufficiently sized rocks/boulders to stopper the doorway at the bottom. They set a tripwire half-way up the long stairwell and had it mechanized such that it released the rocks/boulders down the stairwell and having them smash against the doorway at the bottom, sealing the chamber and the stairwell. Insert Rolling Rocks Trap!

Rolling Rocks
Init + 2 Speed 6
Trigger: An enemy triggers the trip-wire. When the trap is triggered, the rolling boulders attack with surprise. Roll initiative. On its initiative count, the boulder moves down the stairwell (18 steps/squares). The rocks are blocking terrain and cannot be moved through.
Target: Any enemy in its space on its initiative.
Attack: Level + 3 to hit Ref (+ 16 vs Ref)
Damage: Low Damage Expression for Limited Use and knocked back + slowed (3d10 + 6 pushed 2 squares and slowed).


The PCs performed another small Skill Challenge to reinforce the barricaded door, upping the DC 28 (Hard) Athletics by + 5 to DC 33. The derro (those that weren't dead due to the trap) were not going to be able to get to the PCs any time soon. Extended Rest!

We even had a PC death to a particularly horrible Lvl + 5 Elite hazard (a nest of horribly poisonous caterpillars...they destroyed the nest but not before it claimed a PC who was already ailing and out of healing surges) and two near TPKs!

So while not 1e, it was plenty dungeon crawl. That's just one example. I've never been a huge, huge dungeon crawl guy, but I've had 3 larger ones and multiple smaller ones in the last 4 years that went off just fine. I'm even able to have them at high level.
 

It doesn't work well for AD&D-style dungeoncrawling because of the set-piece nature of encounters. Basically, random encounters and fights with 2 orcs don't work very well. See: Keep on the Shadowfell.

I've used plenty of dungeons, though, myself - they just work better if they are somewhat shorter or subdivided into zones. Lost temples, monstrous lairs, trap-filled crypts... They work fine, but you can't write them as if you're playing 1e. (Well, you can, but results will vary.)

-O

I stepped out for a while in the middle of that reply to B.T. and just came back and finished it off. Basically this above.
 

The 4e DMG is anti-sandbox in general. What would have pissed a lot of people off less would be if the DMG had been able to articulate sandboxing vs. adventure path vs. scene-framing Nar and explain how 4e works with each thing.

I know there is a reluctance to nail down different styles like this, lest we replace edition warfare with playstyle warfare (or just come across as weird and over-theoretical), but I think at this point it's necessary to be this clear, especially if you want to move D&D in a new direction. You have to put in a bit more effort to explain what you're doing and why. You can't just imply that a traditional way of playing D&D sucks now. This is bound to cause problems.

Regarding dungeons: The dungeon as setting evolved codependently with the OD&D/Basic/AD&D mechanics and playstyle. I think the whole point of it is to be the best gamist sandbox environment it can be. If you're not running a gamist sandbox, then yeah I can understand why you wouldn't like dungeons very much. They're a pretty boring and dreary setting for scene-based fantasy adventure.

Actually that's a bit of an exagerration; the natural emotional terrain for dungeoncrawling is horror/creepy/weird. If you're running a scene-based fantasy adventure and specifically want to do that, then I can see utilizing a dungeon environment for a while. But if you're not doing that at all, then yeah -- if you feel like the whole dungeon thing is vestigial, trust your instincts and dump it. That makes sense to me.

As to whether or not it counts as D&D if you dump the dungeoncrawl, for me we've already left behind what I want to call D&D when we're not doing a gamist sandbox. The dungeon as setting is a secondary consequence.

Gamist dungeon sandbox is my "narrow" definition of D&D. It's what I kind of wish D&D meant. But I accept the reality is that for most people D&D means something much broader and vaguer, like "violent fantasy story roleplay game thing".
 

@Libramarian Those first 4 paragraphs are extremely on-point (cannot xp unfortunately) and I agree with pretty much all of it outside of the minor caveat of "Gamist dungeon sandbox is my "narrow" definition of O and 1e AD&D". I don't think that "Gamist dungeon sandbox" holds true for the majority of the player-base with 2e and beyond. I thought Armchair General's encapsulation (the post you brought over) of the various playstyles (and the concurrent systems/cultures/chronology) is pretty apropos. I think a big 2e playstyle was to be antagonistic toward gamist play and a metagame agenda but (incoherently) at the same time wanting some sort of narrative control to capture the Dragonlance themes...that typically just ended up in DM-force because the mechanical resolution tools weren't in place for the playstyle interest. Then you saw the granular rulesy shift to 3.x (over the chassis/mesh of classic D&D abstractions) with its process sim agenda. Then 4e came and went the Gamist/Narrativist route.

Given the nuance of those changes, the expectation of explicit DMG canvassing of the creative agendas (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulation) and how they interface with playstyles (sandboxing vs. adventure path vs. scene-framing) is more than fair.
 

Given that a typical realistically proportioned medieval dungeon would consist of a single moderately sized chamber accessed via a trapdoor in the floor above, and would contain no monsters (beyond a possible assortment of rats, lice, and other minor creepy-crawlies), no secret passages, and absolutely no treasure, I think perhaps that "realistic" is not the term you're aiming for.

Point conceded.

Classic dungeons. As others said; two-orcs guarding a door dungeons. The transition from room keys to encounter maps was not kind on 4e at first.
 

More constructively: why does 4e work poorly for dungeoneering and how can it be improved for such?

If we're talking "realistic dungeons thats mines and natural caves. Which it doesnt work well for because they tend to be very cramped IRL and 4e works best when everyone has lots of room to move around.
 

Remove ads

Top