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
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
Similar Threads
