D&D 5E Frustrated with Next

[Tequila Sunrise]

Ok. I'm frustrated to all heck with D&D Next. My group has wanted me to run it as an ongoing adventure in place of a normal campaign, and I am finding that it is in such an underdeveloped state that it is not only unsuited for long term play, but also not fun to play (IMO).

What exactly do your players like about 5e? (I'm assuming they've experienced the play test.)

I say run what you want to run. If there's something you might port over from the play test without too much work, I'd consider it. Otherwise, tell your group that one of them is free to run an ongoing 5e adventure.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Time to put the moderator hat on.

Using words like "w4rrior"? Not cool.

Make your point, make it nicely without denigrating someone else's game, and move on.

 

[fjw70]

I am going to be running the 1e adventure U2 (Danger at Dunwater) with 5e next week. I am going to use the stats from the adventure but just give the monsters Str stats for combat (lizardmen warriors will have a +2 bonus and leaders will have +3 or +4) and wing the other stats as needed (maybe a +1 Dex modifier for the warriors).

This looks like all that is needed to run 1e adventures.

 

[DEFCON 1]

One might suggest that if you are frustrated with how the game is playing, you are, in fact, playtesting correctly.

This isn't a game to be running a "campaign" with. This is a beta-test to see if you are capable of possibly running a fulfilling game with (and worrying about a "campaign" should be the last thing on anyone's mind at this point.) If the game isn't working for you... then you've been doing exactly what you were asked to do. Now all that's left is to let WotC know of your results.

But if you're more concerned about having a fulfilling game experience for your group than you are testing the rules of this new game... playtesting D&DNext might not be the right thing for you. Choose a different game that is actually finished and build a campaign around that.

 

[Sadras]

Actually, I do not need a slew of monsters, more levels, or more spell list. I would prefer there to be rules for levels 1-3, a dozen well designed adversaries, and a handful of useful spells than the catch-all of untested material WotC sent us.

The monsters cannot hit. A -1 attack bonus is laughable against a PC with AC 17 at 1st level. (The +1 is not much better.) Every monster might as well be a 4E minion, because they go down in a single hit. I'm throwing Elite 3rd level monsters (with mooks) against a party of 3 1st level characters, and they are being soundly defeated.

Ppl in this fourm have suggested you increase the 'to hit' modifier by at least +2 for the monsters.

As for non-combat resolution mechanics you'd have to run this on the fly for the most part, but if you have had past DMing experience with ANY edition this should not be too difficult. Make a simple system which you are comfortable with and adjust the DC for situational modifiers or just use past editions. Nothing is stopping you.
As for the Rogue increase the DCs, currently admittedly things are too easy for that class in terms of skills.

 

[timASW]

Well put Firelance - that comment above contributed nothing to the thread.

Oh the entire thread is pointless. "i cant run a campaign with this because, umm because, well just because........"


Without actually specifying what essential element is supposedly missing theres no point to the thing at all except to complain that something in beta test isnt complete. Well Duh it isnt. Thats why its a beta test and not a finished product sitting on a store shelf.

 

[Obryn]

Without actually specifying what essential element is supposedly missing theres no point to the thing at all except to complain that something in beta test isnt complete. Well Duh it isnt. Thats why its a beta test and not a finished product sitting on a store shelf.

Really? I saw at least two specific complaints in the OP - monsters are unthreatening because they are bad, and traps are unthreatening because the Rogue always wins.

And complaining about a playtest is the entire point of playtesting.

-O

 

[Morrus]

Really? I saw at least two specific complaints in the OP - monsters are unthreatening because they are bad, and traps are unthreatening because the Rogue always wins.

And complaining about a playtest is the entire point of playtesting.

Agreed. The initial post is fine - it's exactly what the playtest is for. Some of the responses are less so - although I'll agree that expecting it to support a campaign at this stage is somewhat optmistic and a likely recipe for disappointment.

 

[Stormonu]

One might suggest that if you are frustrated with how the game is playing, you are, in fact, playtesting correctly.

This isn't a game to be running a "campaign" with. This is a beta-test to see if you are capable of possibly running a fulfilling game with (and worrying about a "campaign" should be the last thing on anyone's mind at this point.) If the game isn't working for you... then you've been doing exactly what you were asked to do. Now all that's left is to let WotC know of your results.

But if you're more concerned about having a fulfilling game experience for your group than you are testing the rules of this new game... playtesting D&DNext might not be the right thing for you. Choose a different game that is actually finished and build a campaign around that.

That is, in a way, a little disappointing to hear. One of the aspects of D&D is that is isn't like a board game where you run one scenario and just step away. Returning to play the same character in "further adventures" is a lot of what D&D is about, and having advancement rules would seem to imply that part of the testing they want is for folks to run an ongoing game, not one-shots.

 

[timASW]

Really? I saw at least two specific complaints in the OP - monsters are unthreatening because they are bad, and traps are unthreatening because the Rogue always wins.

And complaining about a playtest is the entire point of playtesting.

-O

I havent experienced that issue with monsters and no one else has complained about them being so easy that its unplayable. A little too easy? Sure. But not unplayably so and its an easy adjustment to make anyway.

The trap thing may or may not be true, I personally hardly ever use them and find the abundance of traps in most D&D to be implausible at best, so I havent noticed any problem. But I'm sure that he's pretty grossly exaggerating that problem too. And anyway thats also extremely easy to adjust.

Saying "I have to raise the DC of traps a little, oh noes this is totally unplayable" is just plain silly.

Talk about issues with the beta yes, hyperventilate yourself into hysterics like that over petty problems? Come on, chill out a little.

Mod Note: Please see my post below. ~Umbran