D&D 5E Live Q&A with D&D R&D

[Hutchimus Prime]

I'd be more than happy with that scenario.

 

[Mistwell]

Also, I have a hard time seeing the game being all that useful if it doesn't come out all at once. With 2e you already have more or less compatible material to use from 1e. 3e and 4e all had to come out at once because they were different enough that you couldn't just plug and play from the edition that was still on the shelves. 5e is going to bear more resemblance to 3e and 4e in that respect, so it probably needs to all come out at once.

We played with just the 3.0e PHB for quite some time. It did not come out all at once. It worked just fine. Besides, with all the adventures already out for it, and conversion guides for 1e and 2e adventures, I think we probably have enough to play for YEARS already if we wanted to.

 

[tuxgeo]

Today's live "Scourge of the Sword Coast" game ended with further Q&A

The group fell behind the schedule of the "Scourge of the Sword Coast" Encounters season drastically because of their not being able to get the group together each week.

This week's session ended early: Greg Bilsland decided that they needed to be leveled up to Level 8 to face the next dungeon they were heading for, and they didn't have upgraded character sheets for that, so they stopped there.

Trevor Kidd said they were going to try to get together a group to play through "Dead in Thay," but plans were not yet finalized. (News to come later.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As part of the play of the session, one thing Mike said was that there were no free actions and no swift actions; instead, Dan Gelon's character would be able to Rage as a "bonus action," but not that turn because his saving throw against being paralyzed came at the end of his turn when he couldn't take further actions of his own.

 

[Lanefan]

The Dungeon Master's Guide is the only one that depends on the other two (and isn't necessary for the game to be completely playable), so that can come last.

Depends what's in the DMG. If all the magic item write-ups are in there (and they really should be) you might need it right off the gun. Ditto for spell rulings, experience point charts (i.e. how many xp a given encounter, combat, or action is worth if not listed in a pre-canned adventure module), and so forth.

Unless 5e bears much more resemblance to either of 3e or 4e than it should, you'll need all three books (or equivalent) to make it playable as intended.

Lanefan

 

[GX.Sigma]

Depends what's in the DMG. If all the magic item write-ups are in there (and they really should be) you might need it right off the gun. Ditto for spell rulings, experience point charts (i.e. how many xp a given encounter, combat, or action is worth if not listed in a pre-canned adventure module), and so forth.

Unless 5e bears much more resemblance to either of 3e or 4e than it should, you'll need all three books (or equivalent) to make it playable as intended.

Lanefan

Magic items (appropriate to levels 1-10) would be in this hypothetical Basic set, and the game doesn't require magic items anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by "spell rulings." Point taken about the XP chart, but they could easily put that in the Basic set and/or Monster Manual.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not sure what you mean by "spell rulings".

In the 1e DMG there was a whole section on what some spells could and couldn't do, how they interacted with other things, and so on - stuff the DM needed to know but the players might have to find out by trial and error or by gathering information in the game world.

Lanefan

 

[Mistwell]

In the 1e DMG there was a whole section on what some spells could and couldn't do, how they interacted with other things, and so on - stuff the DM needed to know but the players might have to find out by trial and error or by gathering information in the game world.

Lanefan

We all got by just fine with only the 3.0e PHB. Nobodies games collapsed due to lack of critical information. Stuff doesn't need to be perfect. If you make a ruling and it turns out the book says different, it's not a big deal.

 

[Jack99]

Another difference might be that the players here are often running more than one character in the party at a time - our average party size is about 8-10 for 4-5 players - so there's always room to chuck in another Cleric or Druid.

I am intrigued. Why do you do this? Could you expand a bit on the pros and cons? What system do you use, and does it matter? The reason I am asking, is because my regular group has shrunk from 7 regular to 3, sometimes 4 players over the course of the last 20 years. As we aren't really interested in taking in new blood, I am always looking for other ways to ensure they always have a balanced party.

 

[Lanefan]

I am intrigued. Why do you do this?

Main reason: flexibility.

Could you expand a bit on the pros and cons? What system do you use, and does it matter?

To answer in reverse order, I run a modified 1e system, but I've seen this done in 3e as well.

Pros:
- flexibility, as noted above, in party composition and in players having more options
- when one character is off doing something else, or dead, or captured, or otherwise non-functional, the player still has something to do in playing the other one
- I as DM don't feel so bad if I do any of the above to a character, as to knock a player out of the game I need to get two (it still happens, but nowhere near as often as it would if they only had one each)
- when an adventure doesn't suit a particular character type very well (e.g. a dumb Fighter in an all-talk intrigue plot) its player can focus on their other character - who is, one hopes, more suited - and leave the less suitable one in the background (e.g. standing there as a quietly intimidating bodyguard) but still available if needed
- a player can play different things at the same time - I usually recommend having the two characters be quite different e.g. a front-line warrior and a back-line caster, or a sneaky type and a healer - without having to resort to ridiculous multi-class combinations
- a large party allows a less-focussed and looser playstyle, which I find to be more fun
- it's easier to fill holes in the party lineup, and some classes that would never get played in a typical 4-player 4-character party (e.g. Assassin, Bard, Monk) actually see the light of day
- there's less pressure to play jack-of-all-trades characters

Cons:
- if a player doesn't show it puts more burden on the others to keep the missing player's characters going ('round here if you don't show for the game your characters are still involved, played by the rest of the players)
- care must be taken to ensure characters run by the same player don't get too chummy with each other unless there is a valid in-game reason for it. (as a player I usually just roll dice to see what my characters think of each other on first meeting, then play to suit; and from experience I can tell you that playing two characters who really don't get along can be a challenge!)
- if you're running 3e the CR/EL system goes out the window; in 3e and 4e you also need to decide whether wealth-by-level or treasure parcel size applies to the overall party or to each individual character, and tweak to suit
- combats take longer

It's worth noting that some players will still choose to only run one character even when two-at-once are allowed.

The reason I am asking, is because my regular group has shrunk from 7 regular to 3, sometimes 4 players over the course of the last 20 years. As we aren't really interested in taking in new blood, I am always looking for other ways to ensure they always have a balanced party.

I've long ago learned that the ability to take in new players on the fly is essential to maintaining a long campaign. That said, I'm somewhat lucky in that there always seems to be more players available here than there are places to put them.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

I have a hard time seeing the game being all that useful if it doesn't come out all at once.

<snip>

3e and 4e all had to come out at once because they were different enough that you couldn't just plug and play from the edition that was still on the shelves.

3e came out staggered over three months I believe.

Correct. The initial printings of the PHB had a "GM's supplement" that had some monsters and some treasures. In the first 3E sessions that I ran - admittedly not all that seriously - I just converted stats from old B/X and AD&D monsters to the new AC-scaling.

Well, assuming the Starter/Basic set comes out first, and is a full game with 10ish levels like they said earlier:

The Monster Manual works as an add-on to the basic game, independent of the PHB or DMG.

The Player's Handbook works as a more advanced version of character creation, independent of the DMG. The PHB does depend on the MM for higher level monsters (since this hypothetical basic set would run out of monsters after level 10).

The Dungeon Master's Guide is the only one that depends on the other two (and isn't necessary for the game to be completely playable), so that can come last.

This all seems pretty sensible.