So I played tonight...

[Sir Brennen]

I'd have to say it sounds like your combats ran long and required a grid due to elements you introduced into the play test, not because of anything in the play test rules themselves.

Specifically, Facing introduces a whole host of game slowing, grid dependent elements. Charging and flanking were also added elements. Adding in an ongoing disadvantage for all your NPCs also involves a lot more die rolling. (Personally, I'm thinking of allowing at most one non-stacking minor penalty or bonus to rolls independent of Adv/Disad, so your light sensitive monsters would have just had the same penalty as 3.5 light sensitive beasties: a -1 to attack and Spot/Search checks.)

 

[KesselZero]

I would be very interested to read a report of a playtest in which you followed all the rules exactly as written.

 

[Libramarian]

Haha geez. I don't see these as house rules. I think you guys are not really grasping the intent of these mechanics. You're supposed to use them as tools to cover whatever you want. Using saving throws for morale checks and flying tackles, and disadvantage for flank and rear attacks are using the rules as intended.

You might say that LostSoul's experience doesn't reflect your own because you use the mechanics differently, but that doesn't mean he's not using them as intended. They're supposed to be used differently by different DMs.

 

[IronWolf]

Haha geez. I don't see these as house rules. I think you guys are not really grasping the intent of these mechanics. You're supposed to use them as tools to cover whatever you want. Using saving throws for morale checks and flying tackles, and disadvantage for flank and rear attacks are using the rules as intended.

You might say that LostSoul's experience doesn't reflect your own because you use the mechanics differently, but that doesn't mean he's not using them as intended. They're supposed to be used differently by different DMs.

I think this is a valuable point. The rules we are looking at are made to be flexible. Does a DM really want flanking? Then hand out advantage to what you consider flanking.

The rules this time around seem much more a framework and tool for the DM to use and tweak as he sees fit for their game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I would be very interested to read a report of a playtest in which you followed all the rules exactly as written.

My group won't be able to get together for a couple of weeks, but in our all day session, I'm deliberately planning to run the first half exactly by the document, and then the second half with two or three small but carefully considered house rules. (I'll have a longer list, and only use the ones that seem to have matter based on the first part of the session.)

 

[P1NBACK]

Haha geez. I don't see these as house rules. I think you guys are not really grasping the intent of these mechanics. You're supposed to use them as tools to cover whatever you want. Using saving throws for morale checks and flying tackles, and disadvantage for flank and rear attacks are using the rules as intended.

You might say that LostSoul's experience doesn't reflect your own because you use the mechanics differently, but that doesn't mean he's not using them as intended. They're supposed to be used differently by different DMs.

This.

It might not be that the mechanics are poor, but the descriptions of how to use them are and therefore we can see LostSoul's dissatisfaction.

I'd much rather read this actual play than all the arm-chair game designer commentary from people who haven't even played the damned thing yet.

Good report. Thanks for posting.

 

[filthgrinder]

wait so... he plays 4E without initiative or a grid...

*mind blown*

so...

Ok, you've already made the decision to kill ordered initiative from D&D. Now, you say playing with it is weird... Isn't that like saying:

"I've removed community chest and chance cards from Monoploy. I found that when I played monoploy on the ipad that community chest and chance cards appearance were weird and threw me"... I mean, you already made the choice to remove them... so you must have already known how it played...

 

[pemerton]

You came from a 4E game and found that stepped initiative was weird

wait so... he plays 4E without initiative or a grid...

<snip>

you've already made the decision to kill ordered initiative from D&D. Now, you say playing with it is weird

As I read it, what [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] found weird was not playing with turn-by-turn initiative, but playing with turn-by-turn initiative without OAs. Which means that orcs can rush in, take an attack, then rush out again to make room for their friends.

He's not the only person to notice this. There is at least one current thread about it, maybe more than one.

It might not be that the mechanics are poor, but the descriptions of how to use them are

I think WotC are pretty bad at writing advice on how to play their games, and these documents live up to that legacy!

The contest issue is a good example. As LostSoul notes, a contest requires an action opposed by another action (per the 1st para under the heading on p1 of the DM's guidelines). Which means that, in a stop motion combat, contest can't occur unless someone has readied an action to act at the same time as someone else. Otherwise it has to be a save, made in response to someone else's action (as per the 1st para under the relevant heading on p2 of the DM's guidelines).

If it is intended that a tackle should generate a contest rather than a save, then the guidelines need rewriting. I think this is also a good illustration of a point that [MENTION=83293]nnms[/MENTION] made on another thread, namely, that "GM rulings" don't necessarily integrate smoothly into such a tightly structured and relatively comprehensive action resolution system as is being presented here.

I'd much rather read this actual play than all the arm-chair game designer commentary from people who haven't even played the damned thing yet.

Good report. Thanks for posting.

I'll plead guilty to arm-chair commentary, and will agree with you that actual play repots are good. I've always been a big fan of LostSoul's AP reports - they are very clear on how the mechanics are being used and what effect they had.

 

[pemerton]

Facing introduces a whole host of game slowing, grid dependent elements.

Like any attempt to be clear about detailed states of the gameworld, keeping track of facing can slow things down. But it is not grid dependent at all. I played AD&D and then Rolemaster for 25 years, and never used a grid, and kept track of facing. I only started using a grid when I also stopped tracking facing, namely, in 4e.

Charging and flanking were also added elements.

Orcs have a special charge ability, which I assume is what LostSoul is referrig to.

 

[Andor]

Good call.

I wonder how the math works out. Anyway, the idea I get from Contests is that two characters are contesting with each other; in this case, since only one character is acting at a time, the target character can't actively oppose.

An attack is right out because I don't think plate mail is helping.

Pushing someone 10' or swinging your sword at someone who turns their back on you doesn't really require a grid.

I found it strange that an orc could charge you, then you could run around him and stab him in the back. At one point, one orc moved in to attack a PC; it would have made sense to move back out and then let another orc into the now-vacant space. That's... kind of odd, I guess. I didn't have the orc do that since I figure that one of my jobs as DM is to maintain the consistency of the game world.

I think that you are really overthinking the turn based initiative. Characters are not stuck in freezeframe during the time it's not their turn. This isn't a JRPG where the sides kind of stand there and occasionally take an unopposed swing as the clock allows.

During the round your characters and monsters are assumed to be moving, turning, defending and weaving as the action calls for. That is, in part, what your dex bonus to AC represents. The turn-based initiative is an abstraction to simplyify play, not a hard coded facet of the physics of the game world.

So it is perfectly logical to assume that when a character is grappled, he wrestles back and you make an opposed strength contest. The rules do not forbid it, nor do they suggest thats not exactly what would happen.

Honestly, try playing your 4e game RAW and see how it goes, then try 5e again.