D&D 5E My New Players Have Quit 5th Edition

[am181d]

The two least helpful answers to a criticism of a new game are "it's too early to make that criticism, the whole game isn't out yet" and the typically hot-on-it's-heals "it's too late to make that criticism, they're not going to change it at this point."

I'm fully aware that the game is still in its early stages. If it were going to handle the theme/tone difference between heroic and gritty, /with modules/, though, you'd expect it to open with one or the other (or a mushy compromise between them), with modules to adjust it forthcoming - /not/ prescribe one set of levels for one and the rest for the other. That's neither modular, nor setting up for later modularity.

You're complaining about a feature of the game that's existed for 40 years. Not everybody likes it, but the gritty-to-heroic transition is the default (read Starter, read Basic) setting of the game.

And you're complaining about a lack of modularity in the Starter/Basic which are not intended to be modular. We have already been given examples of modules in the DMG that address the gritty/heroic balance (Vitality, variable recovery rates, etc).

Patience, padawan.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're complaining about a feature of the game that's existed for 40 years.

A perfect example! See folks, it's both /too early/ AND /too late/ to criticize anything. Ever. Seriously, there are better ways to defend 5e than stonewalling.

The OP pops up and complains the game is too deadly. There are obvious, easily implemented solutions, such as starting at 3rd level. Which is fine for his complaint.

But what about the converse? 5e /does/, by decoupling character advancement from the expectation of wealth and magic items, tantalizingly open up the possibility of 'gritty' play at all levels, yet, thanks to bounded accuracy, HD, overnight healing, magical healing, and rapid hp growth, snatches it away again once you're out of the lowest levels. And, the solutions to that are not so simple nor obvious.

While I don't expect modularity out of the basic set, I would expect the stage to be set for modularity - I'd also have expected to see it in the playtest. That it's still in the vaporware stage at this late date is troubling. I'm patient enough wait and see what they finally come out with - but I'm also realist enough to note that it's not looking good. Of course, I may yet be pleasantly surprised. It's happened before.

 

[wedgeski]

The two least helpful answers to a criticism of a new game are "it's too early to make that criticism, the whole game isn't out yet" and the typically hot-on-it's-heals "it's too late to make that criticism, they're not going to change it at this point."

It's a reasonable answer to the frankly baffling criticism that the Basic D&D PDF (note: not even the PHB) isn't modular enough to support diametrically opposed play-styles.

 

[Emerikol]

It's a reasonable answer to the frankly baffling criticism that the Basic D&D PDF (note: not even the PHB) isn't modular enough to support diametrically opposed play-styles.

I agree that Tony will likely not be satisfied with the DMG. If I could place a bet in Las Vegas on that fact I'd be at the bank getting a second mortgage on my house.

The DMG though will provide a ton of ways to tweak the game. A lot of people might be satisfied by the options offered. I'm not sure I will be but I'm willing to wait and see what they provide. They've made it clear that the optional components are going to mostly be in the DMG.

I guess I never really believed in the playtest as an effective game design tool anyway so what made it in and what didn't doesn't matter much to me. I will see what they provide. It will sell me or it won't. If it doesn't I'll play something else.

 

[Blackwarder]

From personal experience I don't get all the complaints about first level characters in 5e.

I'm playing the Human noble in the starter set, I'm the only experienced player of 5e beside the DM, I got 3 folks who haven't played D&D since 2e and before and a kid who only played 3.5 and 4e and even that was a couple of years ago, and we did fine.

The fighters seacond wind ability is very powerful mid-combat, the wizard (in our game the most bloodthirsty character) used shield a couple of times to save her ass (I'm talking about a 1 hp remaining situation here) the cleric is a very good front line fighter, only the folk hero had the worst luck with the dice and kept missing.

Couple that with playing cautiously and the easy healing rules and we were fine.

Warder

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's a reasonable answer to the frankly baffling criticism that the Basic D&D PDF (note: not even the PHB) isn't modular enough to support diametrically opposed play-styles.

Oddly enough, it /does/ support diametrically opposed play-styles, it just supports one for a few levels, then, without ceremony, switches to supporting the other. That is, indeed, not what one would expect from a 'Basic' or introductory product, especially one that was being designed from the ground up to offer modular support for a variety of playstyles - including the two in question. You' at least expect to see some groundwork for said modularity, if only in system artifacts.

 

[Tony Vargas]

From personal experience I don't get all the complaints about first level characters in 5e.

There legitimate as far as they go (the numbers add up, others have had similar experiences in the playtest, &c), but the game offers such a simple solution - skip Apprentice Tier and start at level 3 - that there's not a lot of point to them when they come from experienced DMs.

 

[keterys]

The fighters seacond wind ability is very powerful mid-combat, the wizard (in our game the most bloodthirsty character) used shield a couple of times to save her ass (I'm talking about a 1 hp remaining situation here) the cleric is a very good front line fighter, only the folk hero had the worst luck with the dice and kept missing.

Doesn't sound like 1st level? It's totally true that those of us "in the know" can consider that level a dead level, not useful for either people starting the game _or_ people experienced at it, but... that's such a weird design decision.

Couple that with playing cautiously.

Doesn't sound like heroic fantasy, or necessarily the default setting for a group of entirely newbies?

 

[Imaro]

Oddly enough, it /does/ support diametrically opposed play-styles, it just supports one for a few levels, then, without ceremony, switches to supporting the other. That is, indeed, not what one would expect from a 'Basic' or introductory product, especially one that was being designed from the ground up to offer modular support for a variety of playstyles - including the two in question. You' at least expect to see some groundwork for said modularity, if only in system artifacts.

This sounds like the zero to hero play style (which oddly enough has been D&D's default play style for the vast majority of it's editions).

 

[Imaro]

Doesn't sound like heroic fantasy, or necessarily the default setting for a group of entirely newbies?

I'm curious as to why not? there is plenty of heroic fantasy in which the protagonists are/must be cautious, especially in the beginning of their story... Not sure I buy that heroic fantasy or even general "newbie" setting has to necessarily equate to the action hero genre... YMMV of course