Argyle King
Legend
I will repost what I posted elsewhere.
Thoughts about 5E after a hands one session at the local gaming store tonight...
I tried to take into consideration that the rules being used were playtest rules and not the final product. However, there seemed to be a world of difference between the stock pregen characters (of which I play one,) and characters that players made themselves. System mastery appears to be very much alive in 5E. I'm unsure how I feel about the combination of a game which is less complex than 4E, but also appears less balanced than 3rd; there were a few moments when that was the worst of both worlds for me as a player.
It was not all negative though. I liked having an additional die to roll concerning certain skills with my character. I was playing the dwarven fighter pregen, but I asked the GM if I could swap out the soldier background for the guide background. After leveling up the pregen (to level 3 so I'd be on par with the other players,) I chose The Path of The Knight. Even though my charisma was terrible, the extra d4 I was able to roll on Cha checks was actually very helpful (and at worst cancelled the penalty to such checks from my 8 Cha.) So, I like the flatter math and how it seems to be implemented outside of combat. Trying something non-optimal wasn't the same as trying something suicidal or worthless in other editions.
However, combat seemed to be all over the place when it comes to balance. Somehow, even though there is (supposedly) flatter math, it certainly doesn't seem more flat in actual play. As I said above, there was a world of difference between my pregen and the character of a guy who made his own. I was struggling to do 1d8+3 (max of 11 damage,) while his gnome barbarian duel-wielding finesse weapons was rolling twice on most attacks (more accurate) and also doing way more damage; all while not have a very noticeable sacrifice in terms of defense.
Another thing that seemed to make combat feel all over the place was the perception that (this may be wrong, but it's how things worked out in play) that most everybody has a great to-hit, but a relatively crap defense. This lead to some encounters feeling a lot like rocket tag.
All-in-all, combat felt like a mixed bag. To some extent, I felt my defensive abilities as a fighter helped the party; I was able to absorb hits which were intended for other party members. However, there were a lot of times when I felt as though I could have been having a lot more fun and could have been far more useful to the party had I picked a different character. I was able to contrast this with a second table who had no fighters at all; were caster heavy, and they completely steamrolled the Encounters session. In fact, they were finished with their entire session before the group I was with even made it through one combat. In the end, I was stuck feeling as though my character had little or no impact on how things turned out. I took a ton of damage, and then used my second wind to heal, so I suppose I soaked attacks -which is good? However, I didn't feel as though I contributed to the party in any other way; I felt I was struggling to keep up with the rest of the party. Like I said, I often felt I would have had both more fun and more input on how things played out had I played something else.
added: I came away with the impression that I like some of the mentality behind 5th Edition, but have no idea how the mechanics are supposed to support that mentality. My impression of the mechanics went from apathy before playing to negativity after playing. While there were some bright spots I enjoyed, I have some concerns about how the game works in play versus how it reads. I also have some concerns that perhaps the mechanics aren't solid enough to base a modular system around without it easily breaking. To some extent, I feel there is a conflict between what the game wants to do ideologically and what the game actually does in play.
Edit: Somehow it worked out that the minimum damage the Gnome could do was 9.
Thoughts about 5E after a hands one session at the local gaming store tonight...
I tried to take into consideration that the rules being used were playtest rules and not the final product. However, there seemed to be a world of difference between the stock pregen characters (of which I play one,) and characters that players made themselves. System mastery appears to be very much alive in 5E. I'm unsure how I feel about the combination of a game which is less complex than 4E, but also appears less balanced than 3rd; there were a few moments when that was the worst of both worlds for me as a player.
It was not all negative though. I liked having an additional die to roll concerning certain skills with my character. I was playing the dwarven fighter pregen, but I asked the GM if I could swap out the soldier background for the guide background. After leveling up the pregen (to level 3 so I'd be on par with the other players,) I chose The Path of The Knight. Even though my charisma was terrible, the extra d4 I was able to roll on Cha checks was actually very helpful (and at worst cancelled the penalty to such checks from my 8 Cha.) So, I like the flatter math and how it seems to be implemented outside of combat. Trying something non-optimal wasn't the same as trying something suicidal or worthless in other editions.
However, combat seemed to be all over the place when it comes to balance. Somehow, even though there is (supposedly) flatter math, it certainly doesn't seem more flat in actual play. As I said above, there was a world of difference between my pregen and the character of a guy who made his own. I was struggling to do 1d8+3 (max of 11 damage,) while his gnome barbarian duel-wielding finesse weapons was rolling twice on most attacks (more accurate) and also doing way more damage; all while not have a very noticeable sacrifice in terms of defense.
Another thing that seemed to make combat feel all over the place was the perception that (this may be wrong, but it's how things worked out in play) that most everybody has a great to-hit, but a relatively crap defense. This lead to some encounters feeling a lot like rocket tag.
All-in-all, combat felt like a mixed bag. To some extent, I felt my defensive abilities as a fighter helped the party; I was able to absorb hits which were intended for other party members. However, there were a lot of times when I felt as though I could have been having a lot more fun and could have been far more useful to the party had I picked a different character. I was able to contrast this with a second table who had no fighters at all; were caster heavy, and they completely steamrolled the Encounters session. In fact, they were finished with their entire session before the group I was with even made it through one combat. In the end, I was stuck feeling as though my character had little or no impact on how things turned out. I took a ton of damage, and then used my second wind to heal, so I suppose I soaked attacks -which is good? However, I didn't feel as though I contributed to the party in any other way; I felt I was struggling to keep up with the rest of the party. Like I said, I often felt I would have had both more fun and more input on how things played out had I played something else.
added: I came away with the impression that I like some of the mentality behind 5th Edition, but have no idea how the mechanics are supposed to support that mentality. My impression of the mechanics went from apathy before playing to negativity after playing. While there were some bright spots I enjoyed, I have some concerns about how the game works in play versus how it reads. I also have some concerns that perhaps the mechanics aren't solid enough to base a modular system around without it easily breaking. To some extent, I feel there is a conflict between what the game wants to do ideologically and what the game actually does in play.
Edit: Somehow it worked out that the minimum damage the Gnome could do was 9.
" rather than try to bang my head against the Wall of Force that is made of odd people holding odd views.
