D&D 5E Starter Set Character Sheet Revealed!

[Obryn]

Maybe you don't, but if I'm going to build a world that's internally consistent, then whatever is going on in the background must resolve similarly to how it would happen if we were actually paying attention to it. After all, our "focus" is a meta-game effect that doesn't exist within the game world, and is thus not allowed to influence anything.

Why not? It's the simplified rules which make a playable RPG, not a physical model of the universe.

Where we part ways is that the rules are an imperfect and incomplete model of a fictional reality and thus unsuitable for modeling everything in it. We work with the rules - whatever they may be, and remember that different rule sets have different focuses - because they're the way you play the game and resolve those interactions.

When you try and model the whole game world using the game rules, it becomes less consistent and relatable, not more. For example, upthread you mentioned that broken legs don't slow you down. I know in another thread, you said there are no veterans who lost their arms and legs in a war. That, to me, is a result of taking a necessarily flawed and incomplete model, and declaring it actually complete.

I mean, I consider my game world to be very internally consistent. It works with an internal narrative logic. I don't need to game it out in my head for it to be so. It's relatable because there might be sickness and infection. Veterans (heck, farmers) might have lost limbs in a war or accident. People might have special talents the PCs might be unable to achieve - and vice versa. Nothing wrong with any of this, unless you have switched your philosophy from "I want my game rules to model reality" to "My game rules are the complete and total sum of reality."

If the party rests for two hours uneventfully: They get one short rest. The fighter gets to Second Wind once.

If the party rests for two hours, but there's a fight in the middle: They get two short rests. The fighter gets to Second Wind twice.

The same rest period (not short rest, the game term, but rest period, the in-world concept of the party sitting and relaxing for two hours) provides more benefit if it's interrupted. This is a silly rule. Full stop.

Fortunately, we have no confirmation yet that there is such a rule. I'm hoping that, as Cybit said, we will instead have a cap on number of short rests per day, which makes a lot more sense all around.

If they have a fight, the Fighter gets a new surge of adrenaline from it. I don't see the problem. An hour of rest, a fight, then another hour of rest is a totally different situation than just sitting around for two hours and should be treated differently.

 

[jbear]

If the party rests for two hours uneventfully: They get one short rest. The fighter gets to Second Wind once.

If the party rests for two hours, but there's a fight in the middle: They get two short rests. The fighter gets to Second Wind twice.

The same rest period (not short rest, the game term, but rest period, the in-world concept of the party sitting and relaxing for two hours) provides more benefit if it's interrupted. This is a silly rule. Full stop.

Fortunately, we have no confirmation yet that there is such a rule. I'm hoping that, as Cybit said, we will instead have a cap on number of short rests per day, which makes a lot more sense all around.

It's as silly as you make it.

People were saying they could rest for three hours to pop second wind 3 times and get free healing. You can't. This was ignored. People were wrong. This is what I commented upon.

As you say, we don't know the rules, I less than a lot of people as I did not actually get to play during the playtests, but only read through the rules briefly at the beginning. I also commented on that fact. We don't know the rules, yet people are getting all mighty worked up abut the broken-ness of the game. I think they should calm down and wait until the picture is clear and there is actually something to discuss. So in this we are in agreement.

In the situation you describe, yes Second Wind becomes more effective if you fight again. Does this make sense? Is it a good rule? I don't know. It depends on how you want to understand HPs. It depends on how you want to run your game.

My players would have earned the right to rest. Doing so would not be a given, or something easy to achieve. If they get through the next fight unscathed as well, that is also something they will have earned. Nothing they come across will be easy, that's not how I DM. So if the fighter got through the next fight unharmed ... well then let him use it again and heal up more.

a) He risked going into that fight while not at maximum HPs: Kudos; that means he was potentially much easier to kill (a high risk indeed against a deadly DM)
b) The party were clever enough to avoid getting their front line guy through the entire combat without a scratch? Kudos (not easy against a deadly DM)
c) They managed to find a way AGAIN to rest for ANOTHER HOUR afterwards? (not easy against a deadly DM)

Jeez, after all that awesomeness, even I would be PUMPED up on Adrenaline! No cleric, do not heal me. I am invincible! Not even this evil rat-DM can harm me!!

Your situation seems very marginal, and certainly not one that I can imagine occurring frquently enough to warrant being an issue in a game I ran (if I were to ever run 5e in the first place).

 

[Dausuul]

You are very dismissive of other people when their argument clearly leaves your own without a valid leg to stand on...

I'm going to go learn blacksmithing now, because I have to do something with all the irony in this line.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Where we part ways is that the rules are an imperfect and incomplete model of a fictional reality and thus unsuitable for modeling everything in it. We work with the rules - whatever they may be, and remember that different rule sets have different focuses - because they're the way you play the game and resolve those interactions.

I'm fine with an imperfect model (broken limbs cause no penalty), or an incomplete one (there are no rules for broken limbs, so improvise where appropriate), but I'm not fine with an inconsistent one (broken limbs can only happen when you're not rolling for it).

If NPCs can lose limbs, but PCs can't, then that's inconsistent.

 

[LFK]

I'm fine with an imperfect model (broken limbs cause no penalty), or an incomplete one (there are no rules for broken limbs, so improvise where appropriate), but I'm not fine with an inconsistent one (broken limbs can only happen when you're not rolling for it).

If NPCs can lose limbs, but PCs can't, then that's inconsistent.

PCs totally can.

They don't, at least not as a matter of routine because that interferes with the narrative structure of most campaigns (since it gets in the way of all but the sand-box-iest of playstyles, and is thus too disruptive to be anything but a rare, special occurrence), but they can.

 

[Psikerlord#]

So I cranked out the math on our Eldrich Knight Action Surged Double Fireball by comparing him to two other 7th level characters (a pure fighter, a pure mage). The Multi-class was the 2/5 split talked about to get 3rd level spells; he actually ISN'T an Eldrich Knight because fighters don't get their subclass until 3rd level. Then, I did the "go nova" route of using their best abilities in one round, and calculated average damage but no mitigation (aka hit everytime, opponent failed saves). Additionally, they have no magic items but proper weapons/focus.

CAVEAT: This is all using the 10/13 Playtest docs. Final product may differ.

Jake – Human Fighter (warrior) 7
Str: 20 (15+1 human +2 fourth level bump +2 6th level bump, max Str)
Attack: Greatsword +8/+8, 2d6+5, 18-20 Critical
Action Surge + Extra Attack (four hits) 8d6+20 = 48 damage (barring crits!) or 12 per hit .
Resources spent: Action Surge

Jackie – Human Wizard (evoker) 7
Int:18 (15 +1 human +2 4th level bump)
Spells per day: 4, 3, 3, 1
Spells Prepped: 8
Blight 8d8 (con ½ DC: 15) for 36 average damage.
Resources spent: one level 4 spell slot.

Jim – Human Fighter 2/Wizard (evoker) 5
Str: 15, Int: 18 (15 +1 human +2 4th level bump)
Attack: Greatsword +5, 2d6+2
Spells per day: 4, 3, 2
Spells Prepped: 6
Action-Surged Fireball/Fireball 6d6/6d6 (dex ½C 15) for average 42 damage (21 per fireball).
Resources spent: Action Surge, two level 3 spell slots.

---

So yeah, our multi-class surge monster did six less damage than our greatsword welding fighter. He did do more than our single classed mage, but our multi-classes surge mage wasted his action surge + TWO of his highest spell slots to get 6 more points of damage out of a round. Additionally, he has less spells prepped and 2 less slots per day for it.

So I'm not worried about multi-classes EKs.

This actually does show a problem. The blaster mage is actually better off MCing to fighter than being a pure mage. I suspect you will see exactly the same results for all other classes, including barbarians, paladins, etc. Action surge is OP - coz all classes will be better with it.... Just because a pure fighter does the most damage with it doesnt make it ok, it simply indicates it is most OP on the fighter chasis, but still the best option for other classes, too. The best fix is to change it to one extra attack, not a whole action, imo.

 

[Psikerlord#]

We did it. All. The. Time.

It was actually quite fun. I am thinking of running a 5e game that will require someone to map. We also had a treasurer (kept track of treasure for party and treasure splitting), and note-taker (when needed).

Agree, map drawing is actually fun. We still do it from time to time

 

[Kobold Stew]

This actually does show a problem. The blaster mage is actually better off MCing to fighter than being a pure mage.

...for damage in one round, without considering resources remaining for the rest of the combat, or other spells to be case over the course of the day, etc. etc.

This actually does not show a problem.

 

[Chaltab]

I'm fine with an imperfect model (broken limbs cause no penalty), or an incomplete one (there are no rules for broken limbs, so improvise where appropriate), but I'm not fine with an inconsistent one (broken limbs can only happen when you're not rolling for it).

If NPCs can lose limbs, but PCs can't, then that's inconsistent.

It's inconsistent because of the most important inconsistency: there is no actual human sitting around bored or forced to be doing something entirely different than the rest of the party. It's a metagame reason, sure, but it's an important metagame reason. I've been playing 4th Edition for four years, DMING for over two, and we've never come across a situation where NPCs having different rules than the PCs caused us any trouble. I mean, if that's what you're group likes, that's what your group likes, but you can't expect the game to default to a very specific personal preference.

If the party rests for two hours uneventfully: They get one short rest. The fighter gets to Second Wind once.

If the party rests for two hours, but there's a fight in the middle: They get two short rests. The fighter gets to Second Wind twice.

The same rest period (not short rest, the game term, but rest period, the in-world concept of the party sitting and relaxing for two hours) provides more benefit if it's interrupted. This is a silly rule. Full stop.

Fortunately, we have no confirmation yet that there is such a rule. I'm hoping that, as Cybit said, we will instead have a cap on number of short rests per day, which makes a lot more sense all around.

It's no different than past iterations of Second Wind in that regard. It's also something fixed simply enough by instituting Healing Surge limits, which will likely be in the modular rules. A first level Fighter can use his Healing Die maybe 5 times a day, a Ranger 3, and a Wizard 1 or 2, based on con score. This lets you limit the healing without putting arbitrary restrictions on how many times someone can rest.

 

[Psikerlord#]

It doesnt matter that it's in one round. Action surge, by working off a whole action, is going to give the best burst in the game once you attach it to any class. It will add to all other damage calculations. It's a problem, it's broken, on any class, coz it will be the clear best pick for combat effectiveness re damage. Sure save or suck/die will still be an option, but even that gets a boost with action surge - you force the BBEG to save twice.

The devs second (but lesser) mistake was attaching it the class with the most attacks in the game... it's such an obviously broken ability, why oh why would you tack it onto the class with the most attacks! It's pure facepalm.