D&D 5E To Anyone Writing 5E Material

[mudbunny]

But that's good. The author should play-test and editors should play-test and comment.

Having the person who wrote it also playtest (or edit) it is possibly the worst thing that could happen. They already know how things are supposed to end up, so they will automatically fill in the blanks that are missing without even realizing that they are doing it.

 

[Croesus]

Explain clearly the math in the module. Don't make up numbers.

Having spent far more hours than I care to remember editing numbers in 3.x, I have to strongly disagree. It's one thing if a creature should have a +3 to hit and the write-up says +13, but otherwise, making sure the numbers are "right" simply detracts from the more important elements:
-Is the creature interesting?
-Does it make sense? (at least don't violate too strongly my suspension of disbelief)
-Is it a reasonable challenge for its purpose?

After checking the numbers for literally dozens of creatures, I found it completely sapped my inspiration and originality. Focusing on numbers had me worrying about the rules instead of imagining something cool, interesting, fun.

GM's were designing monsters for years before 3.x. And for every flumph, there was a githyanki, or death knight, or some other creature that had GM's rubbing their hands with maniacal glee.

My personal hope is that 5E provides creature-design guidelines (not rules) similar to 4E's - something that helps a GM get the numbers in the right ballpark for what is needed. And that 5E stays very, very far away from the idea of "right" numbers.

 

[FireLance]

GM's were designing monsters for years before 3.x. And for every flumph, there was a githyanki, or death knight, or some other creature that had GM's rubbing their hands with maniacal glee.

You mean the flumph didn't cause you to rub your hands with manaical glee? You never thought of using psychic warrior flumphs (who were Tiny in 3e) manifesting compression to become Fine and attacking the PCs from the inside?

 

[ren1999]

Most of you speak wisdom when saying other people should check the author's work.

But I respectfully stand by my earlier comment that authors should play-test their own material first.

And the math isn't that hard. You can have any Fortitude defense you want as long as the ability scores, racial, and class bonuses reflect it. Just change the ability scores first and do the math that players have to do when creating their characters.

Part of the problem with 3.5 is over powering spells and monsters. I hope that 5th edition puts in limitations. Good math is needed to meet those limitations.

My Dungeons & Dragons Hybrid Game for Firefox and Chrome kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar

 

[Blackwarder]

Most of you speak wisdom when saying other people should check the author's work.

But I respectfully stand by my earlier comment that authors should play-test their own material first.

And the math isn't that hard. You can have any Fortitude defense you want as long as the ability scores, racial, and class bonuses reflect it. Just change the ability scores first and do the math that players have to do when creating their characters.

Part of the problem with 3.5 is over powering spells and monsters. I hope that 5th edition puts in limitations. Good math is needed to meet those limitations.

My Dungeons & Dragons Hybrid Game for Firefox and Chrome kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar

Why the hell should I want to do that? I got enough on my plate already and I really don't want to have a system that force me to start doing math while writing an advanture... and I'm a math teacher!

Warder

 

[ExploderWizard]

And the math isn't that hard. You can have any Fortitude defense you want as long as the ability scores, racial, and class bonuses reflect it. Just change the ability scores first and do the math that players have to do when creating their characters.

No way. The last think I want to have to worry about are frikkin monster audits!!

I'm an accountant and get plenty of math during my day job. I want this + that =fun for my monsters.

That doesn't mean sloppy editing is acceptable. A +4 should not become a +40 and stay due to a typo but If I want a tough skinned hard hitting brute of a monster I don't have to come up with a formula to justify why the shmababikker has an armor class of -2 and pummels for 2-12 points of damage.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Most of you speak wisdom when saying other people should check the author's work.

Maybe there's a way to crowdsource it via the internet. There's any number of appalling no life geeks out there who actually enjoy checking numbers for correctness who'd do it for free.

 

[ren1999]

Maybe there's a way to crowdsource it via the internet. There's any number of appalling no life geeks out there who actually enjoy checking numbers for correctness who'd do it for free.

Uh, that would be me.

 

[Tymophil]

What I'd like to see in D&D5 adventures, and yet to see in any module published so far...

1. Lots of players hand-outs. This is what I mainly expect from professionnal publishers : do what I cannot do, or don't have time to do. NPC portraits, beautiful maps, inspiring pictures/documents, etc.

2. Give the Dungeon Master very good introductions. Not just some hastily gathered "character hooks". Once again hand-outs can help...

3. Balance activities in and out of combat. Give us as much to do between combats and during fights. NPC interactions, puzzles, exploration, etc.

4. Write out combats in order to make them dynamic, with hints on how to win them given earlier. What happened before should influence the way the PCs will fight.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Get char-opers to test your game.

If they are one of many groups, fine. If they are one group, HELL NO!!!

They way they play is light years form how I play. Actually, I am not sure if Char-op is how they actually play, but that mindset is not mine, nor my group's.