So I got three players together to try out D&D.
Player 1: Doesn't play D&D anymore, but moved onto different systems during the 3e era and missed 4e. He made up a Warlock because it had the newest and most interesting mechanic, and kept saying "that's awesome" to various 4e innovations (like at-will wizard spells).
Player 2: Played D&D a few times when she was 10, but hasn't played since. Missed both 3e and 4e, with no other RPG experience.
Player 3: My wife, who likes telling stories about D&D games she played in afterwards, but takes little interest in D&D outside the session itself and rarely takes a pro-active role in the session itself.
Player 1 was the Dwarf Warlock (Survivor, Sage) Aldon, an exile from Mithril Hall for making a pact with Ogremach, Prince of Elemental Evil Earth (he wanted to refluff the powers of the Oak Queen to some sort of Gem Lord, so I suggested one.)
Player 2, Like most novice female characters, wanted to play an bishonen elf magic user named Raith. This is why having simple and complex classes doesn't really work fellas. She had help from the other two players though to get her through. "His" background was bounty hunter, and her speciality was magic-user.
Player 3, Played a human cleric named Torvald because in her words "every party needs a cleric I guess" (and she didn't want to bother with racial abilities). She was an acolyte and a soldier for her speciality and background. She really roleplayed up the soldier aspect, which made me slip up and call "him" a paladin from time to time.
I guess I can't really do a play by play of what they did because of spoilers, so I guess I'll just give you my thoughts and theirs.
Player 1 was worried that his warlock blasting abilities were overshadowing the wizard and cleric in terms of raw damage.
I noted that in 4e this wasn't a problem because you had roles, where everyone had high rolls to make even if it wasn't damage. 5e seems to have roles without mentioning it, or by implementing it half-arsed. The wizard fell down a lot because the party didn't have a "defender", while the cleric soon ran out healing spells because it wasn't her job to keep everyone up and healed all the time.
So if the characters are supposed to be relatively self-sufficient, why have some characters with higher defenses or higher damage? In other words, does a wizard need to prepare a shield or stoneskin spell to survive like she did in 3e? Is it a matter of each character maximizing damage output or minimizing damage input, or do you make sure the roles of striker, defender and leader are covered?
DM's concern:
Skill DC's - It didn't seem hard to reach the hard DC's and my PC's made a couple DC's that only gods were supposed to make with a +6 to a skill check. A hard check isn't really hard if you succeed 50% of the time, and while mortals doing what gods can do at high levels isn't bad, it doesn't seem like they should be able to do it with a roll of 18-20 at first level. A tweak of the DC's 2-4 points up seems better (hard should be DC 20 to feel like it is hard to do). Otherwise, (to prevent stat inflation) perhaps skill training doesn't improve your skill bonuses, but instead allows you to take 10 on simple tasks related to that skill.
No morale rules - I know you guys are good enough DM's to be able to do without them, but I need them to keep from going on auto-pilot and fighting to the death. I know it is my fault, but I've been trying to change for 2 editions now, and I can't. Bring back my morale rules as an option. I need help making a decision of whether it is a rout or not.
That should be about all I want to talk about for now.
Player 1: Doesn't play D&D anymore, but moved onto different systems during the 3e era and missed 4e. He made up a Warlock because it had the newest and most interesting mechanic, and kept saying "that's awesome" to various 4e innovations (like at-will wizard spells).
Player 2: Played D&D a few times when she was 10, but hasn't played since. Missed both 3e and 4e, with no other RPG experience.
Player 3: My wife, who likes telling stories about D&D games she played in afterwards, but takes little interest in D&D outside the session itself and rarely takes a pro-active role in the session itself.
Player 1 was the Dwarf Warlock (Survivor, Sage) Aldon, an exile from Mithril Hall for making a pact with Ogremach, Prince of Elemental Evil Earth (he wanted to refluff the powers of the Oak Queen to some sort of Gem Lord, so I suggested one.)
Player 2, Like most novice female characters, wanted to play an bishonen elf magic user named Raith. This is why having simple and complex classes doesn't really work fellas. She had help from the other two players though to get her through. "His" background was bounty hunter, and her speciality was magic-user.
Player 3, Played a human cleric named Torvald because in her words "every party needs a cleric I guess" (and she didn't want to bother with racial abilities). She was an acolyte and a soldier for her speciality and background. She really roleplayed up the soldier aspect, which made me slip up and call "him" a paladin from time to time.
I guess I can't really do a play by play of what they did because of spoilers, so I guess I'll just give you my thoughts and theirs.
Player 1 was worried that his warlock blasting abilities were overshadowing the wizard and cleric in terms of raw damage.
I noted that in 4e this wasn't a problem because you had roles, where everyone had high rolls to make even if it wasn't damage. 5e seems to have roles without mentioning it, or by implementing it half-arsed. The wizard fell down a lot because the party didn't have a "defender", while the cleric soon ran out healing spells because it wasn't her job to keep everyone up and healed all the time.
So if the characters are supposed to be relatively self-sufficient, why have some characters with higher defenses or higher damage? In other words, does a wizard need to prepare a shield or stoneskin spell to survive like she did in 3e? Is it a matter of each character maximizing damage output or minimizing damage input, or do you make sure the roles of striker, defender and leader are covered?
DM's concern:
Skill DC's - It didn't seem hard to reach the hard DC's and my PC's made a couple DC's that only gods were supposed to make with a +6 to a skill check. A hard check isn't really hard if you succeed 50% of the time, and while mortals doing what gods can do at high levels isn't bad, it doesn't seem like they should be able to do it with a roll of 18-20 at first level. A tweak of the DC's 2-4 points up seems better (hard should be DC 20 to feel like it is hard to do). Otherwise, (to prevent stat inflation) perhaps skill training doesn't improve your skill bonuses, but instead allows you to take 10 on simple tasks related to that skill.
No morale rules - I know you guys are good enough DM's to be able to do without them, but I need them to keep from going on auto-pilot and fighting to the death. I know it is my fault, but I've been trying to change for 2 editions now, and I can't. Bring back my morale rules as an option. I need help making a decision of whether it is a rout or not.
That should be about all I want to talk about for now.
