Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Has anyone posted this Gencon 5E report form Charles Dunwoody here yet?
Gencon 5E report from Charles Dunwoody
Gencon 5E report from Charles Dunwoody
D&D 5E RPGNet Report: D&D 5TH EDITION AT GEN CON, PART 1
- Thread starter Mark CMG
- Start date
RangerWickett
Legend
You know, I can kinda see that. Mind you, I like powerful characters, even at 1st level, but maybe they should tweak stuff so this power level appears at 3rd level.
Then again, my 1st level halfling warlock has 6 HP and is terrified of getting hit.
Then again, my 1st level halfling warlock has 6 HP and is terrified of getting hit.
On Puget Sound
First Post
I haven't played yet with the new packet, but we're going to on Saturday. I did make 9 characters, and it looks like we have some serious glass-cannon issues. A first level character of any type can easily deal in one round enough damage to kill his own twin.
MortalPlague
Adventurer
It sounds like some of his criticism comes from playing with a DM who didn't set the stage very well.
He does raise some good points, though. PCs have become more powerful, and it will be an interesting balancing act to see if WotC brings them back a little or increases monsters to compensate.
He does raise some good points, though. PCs have become more powerful, and it will be an interesting balancing act to see if WotC brings them back a little or increases monsters to compensate.
Transformer
Explorer
Good to hear a negative playtest report; always more useful than a gushing one.
As to his own character's power, I blame the dragon sorcerer for that one. He is overpowered and needs to be toned down. On the other hand, I love how eclectic his character sounds.
As to the banality of the adventure, is that the same adventure as the one in the second playtest packet? It sounds like it must be different.
As to the general power level of the 1st level PCs and the monsters, I find myself getting a little frustrated by the report, because he doesn't seem to explain why every fight was so trivially easy to win, and what could've been done to fix it. Why did no one ever take damage? Did the PCs happen to win initiative every time? Did some particular ability or spell win every fight? What happened once the spellcasters ran out of spells for the day? Were the encounters supposed to be balanced (4e-style, in terms of XP budget) for four 1st level adventurers, or were they poorly designed to be too easy?
It definitely should not be possible for fighters to use their expertise dice to increase an attack roll from a miss to a hit. Talk about too powerful.
As to his own character's power, I blame the dragon sorcerer for that one. He is overpowered and needs to be toned down. On the other hand, I love how eclectic his character sounds.
As to the banality of the adventure, is that the same adventure as the one in the second playtest packet? It sounds like it must be different.
As to the general power level of the 1st level PCs and the monsters, I find myself getting a little frustrated by the report, because he doesn't seem to explain why every fight was so trivially easy to win, and what could've been done to fix it. Why did no one ever take damage? Did the PCs happen to win initiative every time? Did some particular ability or spell win every fight? What happened once the spellcasters ran out of spells for the day? Were the encounters supposed to be balanced (4e-style, in terms of XP budget) for four 1st level adventurers, or were they poorly designed to be too easy?
It definitely should not be possible for fighters to use their expertise dice to increase an attack roll from a miss to a hit. Talk about too powerful.
Game balance at the moment is somewhat swingy. Monsters can't hit very well. But when they do, it can be pretty painful (depending on the character), so a couple lucky (or unlucky) rolls, and you're begging to get back to town. For this reason, initiative also plays a large role on that swing, since everything has such few hit points. Looking at a level 1 cleric, he has like 9 or 10 hit points. Two skeletons attack, on hit one crit, and down he goes. And one spell can clear an entire room of kobolds before they act. Level 1 is very unpredictable.
Also there is a lot of power in the DM's hands. I could run a game for level 1 4e characters where they feel like dauntless heroes, or groveling beggars, facing the exact same set of monsters.
This report sounds more like venting, than providing informational criticism.
Also there is a lot of power in the DM's hands. I could run a game for level 1 4e characters where they feel like dauntless heroes, or groveling beggars, facing the exact same set of monsters.
This report sounds more like venting, than providing informational criticism.
Burning hands is a bit over powered, especially when getting up front for a close spell isn't a big risk. The dragon sorcerer has high HP and heavy armor so, yeah, no risk.
I think one of us misread the class, though. I didn't think it gave heavy weapons, just martial.
The Dragon sorcerer may be just a little too good at melee to be so good at spell-casting. Perhaps a reduction in spell points for the sorcerer would be in order. I'm thinking a scale of 2,3,4,6,8,10,13,etc. would do nicely. Also, I'd say the shield proficiency is over-kill. The mutations and dragon magic powers seem ok, though.
Monsters need work, though. HP are ok, but damage is too slavishly tied to weapon tables. Monster attack bonuses, damage, and armor class are borked. It basically makes combat a couple of rounds of rocket tag, with the monsters as talentless noobs - once in a blue moon they actually hit and when they do it is high-impact, but 9 times out of 10 they just miss and then explode. It's kind of boring and anti-climactic. Less damage, better chances to hit, please. Also, with +6 as the minimum baseline to hit AC at level 1, I'd think AC below 12 isn't even fit for a disposable trash minion.
- Marty Lund
I think one of us misread the class, though. I didn't think it gave heavy weapons, just martial.
The Dragon sorcerer may be just a little too good at melee to be so good at spell-casting. Perhaps a reduction in spell points for the sorcerer would be in order. I'm thinking a scale of 2,3,4,6,8,10,13,etc. would do nicely. Also, I'd say the shield proficiency is over-kill. The mutations and dragon magic powers seem ok, though.
Monsters need work, though. HP are ok, but damage is too slavishly tied to weapon tables. Monster attack bonuses, damage, and armor class are borked. It basically makes combat a couple of rounds of rocket tag, with the monsters as talentless noobs - once in a blue moon they actually hit and when they do it is high-impact, but 9 times out of 10 they just miss and then explode. It's kind of boring and anti-climactic. Less damage, better chances to hit, please. Also, with +6 as the minimum baseline to hit AC at level 1, I'd think AC below 12 isn't even fit for a disposable trash minion.
- Marty Lund
Stacie GmrGrl
Adventurer
Yeah I agree on the monsters needing a lot of work. If there is anything from 4th Edition they need to keep is how well designed they were, and this is where I'd keep the classifications of monster types, like Brutes and Lurkers and the rest. This was absolute genius from them.
I think a big part of the problem is poor DMing. I also played at Gencon and had a much better DM experience. We had a mission to go adventuring and had a guide with us to help find what we needed.
I did experience the same lack of danger, but we were facing kobolds, so I didn't really expect to much. We also had two fighters with the protector fighting style so we were able to deflect most damage from attacks that actually hit.
I agree that a lot of work still needs to be done with monsters.
I did experience the same lack of danger, but we were facing kobolds, so I didn't really expect to much. We also had two fighters with the protector fighting style so we were able to deflect most damage from attacks that actually hit.
I agree that a lot of work still needs to be done with monsters.
Blackwarder
Adventurer
Two things:
1. It sounds more like having a DM who didn't knew how to run the advanture.
2. Not having played the advanture, but only after reading it it really does seems like the monsters aren't tough enough...
Warder
1. It sounds more like having a DM who didn't knew how to run the advanture.
2. Not having played the advanture, but only after reading it it really does seems like the monsters aren't tough enough...
Warder
PinkRose
Explorer
He did play the character with the least amount of playtesting behind it.
I would suggest to the author to playtest the fighter and see how that goes since we know it's been worked and reworked.
(But also good to know the Sorcerer seems overpowered as well)
Also, the sorcerer is given a greatsword in the playtest material but only gains Martial weapon proficiency. (I'm at work and don't know if Maul is Martial or Heavy)
And my biggest concern right now is that I think Monsters have too low BAB so that's going to play a role in his concerns.
As someone else said, it's good to hear a negative review as long as it is constructive.
I would suggest to the author to playtest the fighter and see how that goes since we know it's been worked and reworked.
(But also good to know the Sorcerer seems overpowered as well)
Also, the sorcerer is given a greatsword in the playtest material but only gains Martial weapon proficiency. (I'm at work and don't know if Maul is Martial or Heavy)
And my biggest concern right now is that I think Monsters have too low BAB so that's going to play a role in his concerns.
As someone else said, it's good to hear a negative review as long as it is constructive.
I ran in to the opposite issue, we played Rocket Tag. The Orcs we faced dropped whatever they hit in one shot, Fighter, Cleric or Sorcerer. I played a Guardian build and used my reaction and Expertise Dice and they still dropped three of us in a round. When we went, we dropped one with every (or every two) hits normally.
Libramarian
Adventurer
No!
From the report the DM seemed to be at least competent. They just weren't carrying the game with their storytelling and purple description.
I DON'T think that should be required to have fun with D&D. The game should have a pulse of its own, even when you're doing a basic plotless dungeon crawl. It should be dangerous and mentally stimulating and provide risky, gamble-y thrills, and have meaningful rewards, hard-won.
It sounds like basic dungeon crawls suck right now in 5e, and that's a big problem.
Bow_Seat
First Post
Based upon this playtest alone I would be inclined to agree with you. I certainly agree with your sentiments on how plotless dungeons should still be stimulating, but with all of the other reports that have been on this forum about how dangerous adventuring has been for other groups I'm really not sure what to believe yet.
Rhenny
Adventurer
I haven't DMd or played 2nd playtest package yet, but I do see a potential problem that speaks to the RPG review.
Most of the monsters in the beastiary have +2 or less to hit. Many of them are -1, -2, +1. The big boppers (Ogres, Trolls, Minotaurs, Wight) are +4. Their hit points have also been erroded.
Even with reduced hp for PCs, if the monsters don't hit enough, there will be less fear.
On the other side, PCs have an average of +6 to hit (some have +7). This, coupled with the reduced hit points of the monsters takes some of the omph out of these foes.
If 5 PCs focus fire on any relatively dangerous foe, the foe will not stand for long.
I'm all for storytelling and heroic feel, but I think WotC needs to work on the "to hit", damage and hit point dial a little bit more.
I'm optimistic that they will take these criticisms in stride and really put the numbers through more testing.
Most of the monsters in the beastiary have +2 or less to hit. Many of them are -1, -2, +1. The big boppers (Ogres, Trolls, Minotaurs, Wight) are +4. Their hit points have also been erroded.
Even with reduced hp for PCs, if the monsters don't hit enough, there will be less fear.
On the other side, PCs have an average of +6 to hit (some have +7). This, coupled with the reduced hit points of the monsters takes some of the omph out of these foes.
If 5 PCs focus fire on any relatively dangerous foe, the foe will not stand for long.
I'm all for storytelling and heroic feel, but I think WotC needs to work on the "to hit", damage and hit point dial a little bit more.
I'm optimistic that they will take these criticisms in stride and really put the numbers through more testing.
Brought to you today by D&D Next.
Where you can effectively play Drizzt the Necromancer.
Where you can effectively play Drizzt the Necromancer.
Last edited:
Well, I think the bump in character power from Playtest (PT) 1 to 2 is clear. But what is also clear is the monsters didn't see any bump at all. I'd rather place the "blame" on the monsters, rather than on too powerful characters (sorcerer maybe a notable exception).
For those DMing, have you tried bumping monster HP and adding +2 or so to attacks? Or in any way "bumped" monster power?
For those DMing, have you tried bumping monster HP and adding +2 or so to attacks? Or in any way "bumped" monster power?
Mercule
Adventurer
Considering that my style has always been to use PC race adversaries heavily, I'm very concerned that a PC can dish out 2d6+ damage on a regular basis, while the NPCs can only take half that. Sure, mooks are there to be fodder, but an even fight shouldn't amount to who can get in the first hit.
I also want 1st level to remain gritty. I don't really mind if the 10th (or even 5th) level fighter can dance merrily through a band of orcs, but the 1st level fighter should be cautious of going up against more than one at a time, solo.
I also want 1st level to remain gritty. I don't really mind if the 10th (or even 5th) level fighter can dance merrily through a band of orcs, but the 1st level fighter should be cautious of going up against more than one at a time, solo.
Hi,
I'm Charlie's brother, who played through the two playtests with him. Yes, I'm the one who cast Burning Hands on him.
I share most of Charlie's conclusions about the playtest. Some of it could be laid at the feet of the DM. The DM (I'm pretty sure that we had the same one both times) seemed to know the rules, but he didn't rise to the occasion of demonstrating the glory of 5th Ed.
Part of the problem may have been the scenario design. No NPCs to interact with. No non-combat challenges to overcome. Nothing to engage us as players. After 4 hours of playtesting 5th Ed., I couldn't tell you how skills worked or how PCs interacted with the world. A better scenario might have helped here.
I agree with Charlie that the PCs just seemed to powerful. I played a wizrard who hung back and popped a Magic Missile every round. I didn't need to blow a Burning Hands because the front line fighters, including Charlie's character, had things well in hand. The one time that I did cast BH, I blasted Charlie's character as well as the monster, mostly out of boredom. It was near the end of the session and no one in our party was down any HP.
Toning down the powers of the PCs or upping the power of the monsters would help. I also think that the designers of 5th Ed. need to work on rules other than combat, or at least offer scenarios with a greater range of options.
mongo
I'm Charlie's brother, who played through the two playtests with him. Yes, I'm the one who cast Burning Hands on him.
I share most of Charlie's conclusions about the playtest. Some of it could be laid at the feet of the DM. The DM (I'm pretty sure that we had the same one both times) seemed to know the rules, but he didn't rise to the occasion of demonstrating the glory of 5th Ed.
Part of the problem may have been the scenario design. No NPCs to interact with. No non-combat challenges to overcome. Nothing to engage us as players. After 4 hours of playtesting 5th Ed., I couldn't tell you how skills worked or how PCs interacted with the world. A better scenario might have helped here.
I agree with Charlie that the PCs just seemed to powerful. I played a wizrard who hung back and popped a Magic Missile every round. I didn't need to blow a Burning Hands because the front line fighters, including Charlie's character, had things well in hand. The one time that I did cast BH, I blasted Charlie's character as well as the monster, mostly out of boredom. It was near the end of the session and no one in our party was down any HP.
Toning down the powers of the PCs or upping the power of the monsters would help. I also think that the designers of 5th Ed. need to work on rules other than combat, or at least offer scenarios with a greater range of options.
mongo
Similar Threads
