D&D 5E What will it take to be a good DM in 5E?

john112364

First Post
What will make a DM good in reference to 5E?

Here are a few things that will be required knowing what we know from articles and the play test:


  1. They will need to be able to do Quadratic Probability Equations in their head - Due to Advantage and Improvisation the DM will need to be able to calculate relative success and failure chances when handing out Advantage and Disadvantage as well as when setting DC's for improvised actions.
  2. The DM will need to be a master story teller - Due to the way Vancian casting can be abused and the 5 minute work day, the DM will have to be able to outsmart all of the players every time by coming up with story reasons why they can't fight once or twice then rest for 24-48 hours to get spells back.
  3. The DM will need a photographic memory - Due to the way improvisation works the DM will have to remember every single ruling over the course of a 20 level campaign (months or years) or have players that get their 'verisimilitude' hurt. They will seem arbitrary and be mistaken as showing favoritism when they are not.
  4. (Optional) Be a master at Rock, Paper, Scissors - This depends on how the spells are done, but just from Sleep, Hold Person, and Charm Person we can see that the previously broken spells like teleport and scry will probably make it back in and force the DM to line every dungeon with lead and have anti-scry spells on every BBEG.
What else will the DM of 5E need to be 'good'?

Really? Based on the play test, I didn't see the need for any of that nonsense. You are definitely over thinking. 5e doesn't have anything more complicated than any other version of DnD. I have definitely seen more complicated systems.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

What will make a DM good in reference to 5E?

Here are a few things that will be required knowing what we know from articles and the play test:


  1. They will need to be able to do Quadratic Probability Equations in their head - Due to Advantage and Improvisation the DM will need to be able to calculate relative success and failure chances when handing out Advantage and Disadvantage as well as when setting DC's for improvised actions.
  2. The DM will need to be a master story teller - Due to the way Vancian casting can be abused and the 5 minute work day, the DM will have to be able to outsmart all of the players every time by coming up with story reasons why they can't fight once or twice then rest for 24-48 hours to get spells back.
  3. The DM will need a photographic memory - Due to the way improvisation works the DM will have to remember every single ruling over the course of a 20 level campaign (months or years) or have players that get their 'verisimilitude' hurt. They will seem arbitrary and be mistaken as showing favoritism when they are not.
  4. (Optional) Be a master at Rock, Paper, Scissors - This depends on how the spells are done, but just from Sleep, Hold Person, and Charm Person we can see that the previously broken spells like teleport and scry will probably make it back in and force the DM to line every dungeon with lead and have anti-scry spells on every BBEG.
What else will the DM of 5E need to be 'good'?

Okay, you don't like 5e. We get it. Thank you.
So stick to 4e or find another game you like and stop picking fights here. They're not going to change enough if the game to satisfy you, so your feedback is likely unecassary. Stick to what you like and enjoy that. Have some fun.
 

Lokiare

Banned
Banned
The same things as for any other RPG ever - an ability to make and enforce rulings fairly, quickly and consistently; the ability to manage the half-dozen disparate personalities at the table; a decent knowledge of storytelling; and a strong imagination.

Sorry some of that is not needed in games like 4E. The rules are very clear and the DM doesn't have to worry about making 'rulings' except when players do improvised actions, at which point there is a handy reference guide on page 42 of the DMG. This allows the DM to have more time to develop the story, plot, and NPCs. There are other games that are similar to this.

5E goes way back even before 3.xE and puts way more on the DMs plate.

Hardly. For setting improvised DCs the DM will need three numbers in mind: an Easy, Medium, and Hard DC.

Nope. There are 5 levels of difficulty mentioned in the play test. The DM also has no guidelines except what they think should be easy, medium, hard, heroic, and demigod. Which means each DM is going to rule differently and some DMs will rule differently at different times. Thus the whole photographic memory thing.

For determining advantage/disadvantage, he needs to consider the question: "is this significant". If it's a significant advantage, he grants advantage. If it's a significant disadvantage, he imposes disadvantage. And anything that's not significant just gets ignored.

Actually they need to understand how Advantage and Disadvantage affect the game. Depending on the DC Advantage is anywhere from +5 to +2 and Disadvantage is -2 to -5. These are bigger than any other bonus in the game. It also breaks bounded accuracy. So yeah whether they are actually doing the math or just guesstimating in their heads based on experience they are doing probability calculations.

That's actually much less to juggle than any edition previously - there's no micro-tracking of minor modifiers, there's no stacking rules to worry about, and the "bounded accuracy" system means that the DM doesn't even need different DCs per level (as in 4e and SWSE) - he just needs one Easy number, one Medium number, and one Hard number.

It seems simpler on the surface, but when you dig down into the math (see above) many people would just rather go back to a simple +2. Using Advantage and Disadvantage it is extremely easy to give the players something broken. For instance if you grant Advantage for throwing sand in the eyes of their enemies, then every player will start carrying around a bag of sand and use it as their first attack on every enemy because Advantage is more powerful than anything else in the game at this point.

Alternately, the DM could stop fighting against his players, and work with them to create the adventure together. They may actually find that they have more fun that way.

I've long since concluded that there's a reason I've never had an issue with five-minute adventuring days; with constantly having my rulings questioned, argued and mocked; or with the old scry-buff-teleport trick.

Mature players.

Not having pre-judged the system a year before release might help, too.

No, the only thing that happens with mature players is they don't return after the first session if they don't like the game.

Also those tactics are baked into the game and are a valid play style. Short of the DM banning spells or asking the players not to break the game in that way, there is nothing stopping them from taking those actions. This appears at the moment to be a part of 5E.

I'm glad you have players that work with you for your style of game, others don't have that.

As to judging the system. We are pointing out valid reasons based on the play test and articles. That's the information we have at hand. If that information changes so will our arguments...
 

Lokiare

Banned
Banned
Naaah. You just need to know two rules-of-thumb:
1 - DC's higher than 10 get progressively tougher.
2 - Advantage won't help you hit a higher number, but it will save you from bad rolls.

[URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] is already in the playtest docs. ;)

You must have a different play test than me. The one I have (the official public one) has 5 levels of difficulty for DCs and just kind of throws the DM to the sharks (An experienced DM might be able to swim, but a new or mediocre DM is going to drowned).

Advantage is a progressive increase based on the DC you are trying to hit. Its +5 around 10-11 and +1 around 19-20. In other words a nightmare for a DM to try to guesstimate the effect of granting.

The playtest already includes guidelines for monster reinforcements and advice along the lines of: "The party can't rest safely here in the midst of all these monsters."

Yes, but what happens when they go back to town or a safe distance away. At higher levels what if they use a rope trick like spell in the middle of the dungeon. Yes you can come up with contrived railroad style things that will happen every time the players want to have a 5mwd unfortunately it becomes predictable and annoying to the players when you start repeating ideas. Its also more trouble for the DM. They have to build into every adventure some 'reason' why the part can't rest, and it really constrains what kind of stories can be told.

"You come upon the hidden doorway to a long lost tomb. Oh and the... uh... princess is going to be eaten by goblins if you don't clear it out in 1 day...."

[URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] from above works fine. Peg how tough you think it might be. Don't sweat the small stuff.

While your play style is completely valid. Don't assume everyone wants a wild swingy DM fiat filled story fest...

Charm Person and Sleep and Hold Person already display that the nerf bat is well in place for magic, in comparison to their older versions. Given that the game is designed to be modular, I can't imagine they'll require one rules element in order to counter another.

Unless you've seen some documents I haven't seen, they are just as broken as ever.

Sleep halves the movement of any creature of any level that is in the area of effect. That's powerful no matter what level you are. "Ha ha... I just made the dragon move at half speed, now it can't catch us."
"Boy those hill giants sure look funny moving at half speed."

Hold person immobilizes any target that it doesn't paralyze. Sure hope every monster has a ranged attack... with bounded accuracy it also means that the DCs of these spells will make it super difficult to resist for any creature of any level.

Charm person makes the target not attack you. That means the wizard take out leaders with little or no effort.

What every DM ultimately needs: a desire to have fun playing make-believe.

The doom and gloom seems unwarranted. We're early in a playtest phase and just because the game has a few mechanics that might not sit right with you doesn't mean the whole enterprise is immediately and forever borked.

If you personally find it hard to DM a playtest of 5e, I'd keep that in mind for your next playtest report. If you're not an outlier, they'll inevitably address the problem. It might help your feedback, though, if you ground your criticisms in actual experience with the game, rather than theorycraft.

I'm not spreading 'doom and gloom' these are legitimate concerns I'm bringing to light in the hopes they will be addressed before 5E gets released so that ALL of us can have fun and not just a small subset of the entire D&D fan base.

As to experience I've been playing since early 2E every edition up to and including 4E and Essentials. I also play tested 5E on the day of release as well as several times after that until my players were bored to tears of fighting goblins and hobgoblins that were almost exactly the same (except hobgoblins charged the Wizard, which no one liked)...

Just because you have not experienced any of these things does not mean they are 'theorycraft'. I have experienced every one of these problems in my time playing and they are just as valid.

The thing some people need to ask is would their group have just as much fun playing any edition of D&D or even monopoly or risk. If the answer is yes, then that means you would have fun playing anything and can't really talk about what others dislike about the game. There has to be some perspective in there...
 

Lokiare

Banned
Banned
Or the dm could just hand out advantage and disadvantage based on what happens in game and what makes sense without worrying too much about the probabilities.



Wow, you sure have figured out a lot about how to abuse the system after seeing only an early alpha playtest document covering three levels with pregens only!



Yes, because without a photographic memory all of our campaigns have fallen into disarray in every previous edition.



Gosh, you sure have gleaned some awesome insights from that early-alpha playtest document covering 3 levels of pregens!

Yep and I'll tear the next play test packet to shreds in the same way in the hope that the final game will be playable by all and sell a lot of copies.

If everyone just stands back and acts like its a great game without actually testing it they are just dooming it to mediocrity and failure.

Also none of the articles we've seen so far address any of the issues I brought up so yeah, I'm going to point out the bad so that maybe it will be taken care of before final release...
 

Lokiare

Banned
Banned
Okay, you don't like 5e. We get it. Thank you.
So stick to 4e or find another game you like and stop picking fights here. They're not going to change enough if the game to satisfy you, so your feedback is likely unecassary. Stick to what you like and enjoy that. Have some fun.

Whoa whoa whoa there... I am not picking fights. I'm asking for feedback on DMing 5E.

If it helps mentally add a smiley at the end of my posts.

Valid feedback that is non-inflammatory and does not use charged language that addresses real issues is not picking fights.

I'd rather give my feedback in the hopes that 5E will be a game for all players and play styles with as few problems as possible, rather than a jumbled mess that only caters to a couple play styles and leaves the rest of us out in the cold, but nice try though to paint me as 'fighting'
 

Yep and I'll tear the next play test packet to shreds in the same way in the hope that the final game will be playable by all and sell a lot of copies.

If everyone just stands back and acts like its a great game without actually testing it they are just dooming it to mediocrity and failure.

Also none of the articles we've seen so far address any of the issues I brought up so yeah, I'm going to point out the bad so that maybe it will be taken care of before final release...
Tearing it to shreds will just get you dismissed as an edition warrior and your points will be ignored, regardless of how valid they might be.

Post constructive criticism. Suggest fixes and solutions. Mention what you like as often as what you dislike.

Remember that the first playtests are about the basics not individual spell effects which can be easily fixed at the last minute. They can completely re-write sleep or ray of frost or cleave a week before sending the book to the printer. But if they try and fix how hitting, skills, advantage or the math a week prior it will be disastrous.
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
You must have a different play test than me. The one I have (the official public one) has 5 levels of difficulty for DCs and just kind of throws the DM to the sharks (An experienced DM might be able to swim, but a new or mediocre DM is going to drowned).

I don't think I have a different playtest, but I may have a very different need from my games. 5 levels of difficulty is PLENTY to make me feel like I'm not being thrown to the sharks.

How many would you prefer? 10? 20? 100? How much granularity do you actually want? How much do you need in play?

Advantage is a progressive increase based on the DC you are trying to hit. Its +5 around 10-11 and +1 around 19-20. In other words a nightmare for a DM to try to guesstimate the effect of granting.

Advantage = a re-roll. So it can help you hit things that you missed, but that you could've hit.

The exact mathematics (which work out more to be ~ +3) don't actually need to be calculated to know that advantage lets you ignore a low roll.

Yes, but what happens when they go back to town or a safe distance away. At higher levels what if they use a rope trick like spell in the middle of the dungeon. Yes you can come up with contrived railroad style things that will happen every time the players want to have a 5mwd unfortunately it becomes predictable and annoying to the players when you start repeating ideas. Its also more trouble for the DM. They have to build into every adventure some 'reason' why the part can't rest, and it really constrains what kind of stories can be told.

This gets into some territory where I have some rather controversial ideas, but let me put something out there I think everyone can agree on: in a playtest, you are supposed to test the rules in front of you, not the rules in your head that might potentially lie somewhere down the line that you haven't seen yet.

Given that the actual rules we have don't include a town or a rope trick spell, I think any speculation on what these things would be like is a little premature.

The rules DO include resting mechanics, and explicitly a way to foil them in this case. As of right now, in a playtest, I don't think it's fair to accuse them of setting the DM bar improbably high in some hypothetical future disastercase. So far as we have to test, these are the resting mechanics. The final game, pretty obviously, will have some differences.

...especially as resting is one of the big quibble-points of this round of playtesting.

While your play style is completely valid. Don't assume everyone wants a wild swingy DM fiat filled story fest...

Backhanded jiu-jitsu ninja insults aren't going to earn your arguments any credibility.

Unless you've seen some documents I haven't seen, they are just as broken as ever.

I think the drop from "Knock anyone out who fails a save" to an HP threshold, and the drop from "If they fail the save, they're your loyal friend" to advantage on Charisma checks is pretty dramatic.

How has your actual play experience managed to break them?

I'm not spreading 'doom and gloom' these are legitimate concerns I'm bringing to light in the hopes they will be addressed before 5E gets released so that ALL of us can have fun and not just a small subset of the entire D&D fan base.

Bringing a legitimate concern looks something like this:

"Guys! Sleep still looks REALLY powerful to me! Do you agree?"

Doom and gloom looks more like this:

"5e is gonna suck because the designers are indoctrinated into the cult of Vancian Magic! Let me see how snarky I can be when pointing that out!"

As to experience I've been playing since early 2E every edition up to and including 4E and Essentials. I also play tested 5E on the day of release as well as several times after that until my players were bored to tears of fighting goblins and hobgoblins that were almost exactly the same (except hobgoblins charged the Wizard, which no one liked)...

Ah! Boredom isn't one of the problems you mentioned. We can drill down further to find out why, specifically, your players were bored, if you're interested in a useful conversation. We'd probably even find some big areas where we agree! I think the playtest lacks variety, too. Of course, the nature of a playtest is that it is often narrowly focused, to get the best feedback.

The thing some people need to ask is would their group have just as much fun playing any edition of D&D or even monopoly or risk. If the answer is yes, then that means you would have fun playing anything and can't really talk about what others dislike about the game. There has to be some perspective in there...

I'm trying to help you talk about your perspective in a way that is constructive and that people will be receptive to hearing.

Making a thread about how borked 5e DMing will inevitably be is about as useful as screaming "4e is a videogame!!!" or "1e Wizards are like gods!!!" It's not very specific, or very constructive, so it sounds a lot more like you're getting up on a soapbox saying "The End Is Near!" than offering a useful critique.

Moar Play Examples, Plz.
 

Lokiare

Banned
Banned
I don't think I have a different play test, but I may have a very different need from my games. 5 levels of difficulty is PLENTY to make me feel like I'm not being thrown to the sharks.

How many would you prefer? 10? 20? 100? How much granularity do you actually want? How much do you need in play?

I prefer a bunch of examples that I can work from. A wooden door is DC 10, an iron door is DC 15, a magically sealed iron door is DC 20 or whatever, but they need to have many examples so that any given DM will get within a few points of what the developers are expecting. So that everyone can get a 'fair' gaming experience and not have culture shock when moving from table to table with different DMs.

Advantage = a re-roll. So it can help you hit things that you missed, but that you could've hit.

The exact mathematics (which work out more to be ~ +3) don't actually need to be calculated to know that advantage lets you ignore a low roll.

Here your factually wrong. Go to www.anydice.com for the math behind it. The link I posted there has the highest of a regular d20 roll the lowest of a regular d20 roll the highest of 2d20 and the lowest of 2d20. You'll see what I'm talking about. It changes based on what your target DC is.

This gets into some territory where I have some rather controversial ideas, but let me put something out there I think everyone can agree on: in a playtest, you are supposed to test the rules in front of you, not the rules in your head that might potentially lie somewhere down the line that you haven't seen yet.

The rules in front of us allow the players to leave the caves of chaos and then rest a ways away. The DM can use contrived interruptions to keep the party from resting, but it gets old and doesn't solve the problem of the 5mwd, it only trades the problem out for a limited play style.

Given that the actual rules we have don't include a town or a rope trick spell, I think any speculation on what these things would be like is a little premature.

The rules DO include resting mechanics, and explicitly a way to foil them in this case. As of right now, in a play test, I don't think it's fair to accuse them of setting the DM bar improbably high in some hypothetical future disaster case. So far as we have to test, these are the resting mechanics. The final game, pretty obviously, will have some differences.

...especially as resting is one of the big quibble-points of this round of play testing.

Sure as I said above though it starts to get contrived after trying to rest 10 times and each time you get attacked by X number of kobolds or goblins or random monsters.

Backhanded jiu-jitsu ninja insults aren't going to earn your arguments any credibility.

How can I better describe your play style? Without at least having a general idea of what Advantage and Disadvantage do you will make the game very swingy. As it is setting DCs nearly at random is DM fiat. Using story reasons to prevent the 5mwd becomes contrived and thus is a story fest. I'm completely willing to call it something different if you can define it in a way that doesn't offend you.

I think the drop from "Knock anyone out who fails a save" to an HP threshold, and the drop from "If they fail the save, they're your loyal friend" to advantage on Charisma checks is pretty dramatic.

How has your actual play experience managed to break them?

Casting hold person on the charging Ogre in the hallway allows everyone to pretty much attack it about 5 times for free before it has an average chance of making the save to move again. Against creatures with ranged attacks they can simply hold person it move around a corner then pop out attack and move back around the corner to completely avoid its ranged attacks. A Wizard that charms the BBEG spell caster makes the caster unable to include him in the area effect of any spells they cast, so the party can just bunch up around the caster and attack the crab out of the BBEG while the caster just stands there and does their nails...

Bringing a legitimate concern looks something like this:

"Guys! Sleep still looks REALLY powerful to me! Do you agree?"

Doom and gloom looks more like this:

"5e is gonna suck because the designers are indoctrinated into the cult of Vancian Magic! Let me see how snarky I can be when pointing that out!"

I'm not sure if you are confusing my arguments with those of another person. I never said 5E is gonna suck. I said a good DM for 5E will need to X...

Big difference. If you want you can help me out by rephrasing things I actually said in a way that is less 'Doom and Gloom', really though I think you are putting your own spin on what I actually said. If it helps imagine that I end every paragraph with a smiley...

Ah! Boredom isn't one of the problems you mentioned. We can drill down further to find out why, specifically, your players were bored, if you're interested in a useful conversation. We'd probably even find some big areas where we agree! I think the play test lacks variety, too. Of course, the nature of a play test is that it is often narrowly focused, to get the best feedback.



I'm trying to help you talk about your perspective in a way that is constructive and that people will be receptive to hearing.

Making a thread about how borked 5e DMing will inevitably be is about as useful as screaming "4e is a video game!!!" or "1e Wizards are like gods!!!" It's not very specific, or very constructive, so it sounds a lot more like you're getting up on a soapbox saying "The End Is Near!" than offering a useful critique.

Moar Play Examples, Plz.

I think that starting a thread like this is useful and a valid form of feedback. I'm sorry you are unable to see the value in this kind of discussion...
 

delericho

Legend
Sorry some of that is not needed in games like 4E. The rules are very clear and the DM doesn't have to worry about making 'rulings' except when players do improvised actions, at which point there is a handy reference guide on page 42 of the DMG.

Firstly, there's no reason to assume that 5e won't include its equivalent of "page 42". WotC are well aware of how well that was received in 4e; they would be mad not to include something similar.

Secondly, the trade-off for the 4e rules being "very clear" as you say was that the core rules ran to nearly 1,000 pages, and the supplemental rules ran to several thousand pages (and the game was structured to strongly encourage the use of those supplements). Personally, I don't find that a worthwhile trade - I found keeping track of that mass of rules (not to mention the constant changes) far more taxing than the need to make rulings.

This allows the DM to have more time to develop the story, plot, and NPCs.

That was not my experience with 4e at all. But I really don't want to rehash the 3e/4e Edition Wars, so I'll stop there.

Nope. There are 5 levels of difficulty mentioned in the play test.

Oh well, in that case, you're absolutely right! I had forgotten there were five whole numbers to work with!

Seriously, the difference between three and five levels is trivial.

The DM also has no guidelines except what they think should be easy, medium, hard, heroic, and demigod.

Again, you assume that these guidelines won't exist. Funnily enough, until 4e was released there was no reason to think "page 42" existed in that edition; there's actually more reason to think it will exist in 5e (since WotC know it's a good idea).

Which means each DM is going to rule differently...

So...?

Not only do I not think that's necessarily a bad thing, but neither do I think it's a new thing. Different DMs have always used different subsets of the supplements, they've always used different house rules, and they've always applied the rules that they do use unevenly. No two tables have ever been exactly alike, even in tournament play.

and some DMs will rule differently at different times. Thus the whole photographic memory thing.

If it bothers you that much, write down your rulings.

Alternately, you could note that the exact same situation doesn't actually come up twice in the campaign. The PCs gain experience as they go, and they never again meet quite the same door a second time - either its a subtly different door, or if it is the same door then it has been changed by the previous interaction with the PCs.

In other words, while the DM should strive to be consistent in his approach to the game, he doesn't need to be perfectly consistent.

Besides, the players are likely not to remember either. In my experience, they find it a challenge to remember what happened in the last session even in broad strokes!

Actually they need to understand how Advantage and Disadvantage affect the game. Depending on the DC Advantage is anywhere from +5 to +2 and Disadvantage is -2 to -5.

This is a misconception. Advantage and disadvantage aren't bonuses at all; they're rerolls. They will neither let you hit a DC you previously couldn't, nor automatically take one that was previously possible out of reach.

These are bigger than any other bonus in the game. It also breaks bounded accuracy. So yeah whether they are actually doing the math or just guesstimating in their heads based on experience they are doing probability calculations.

Actually, unless I've misread something, the DM shouldn't be doing those probability calculations at all. The DC of the challenge should be set, possibly in relation to PC capabilities, but independent of the possibility of advantage. Then, when the situation occurs, advantage may be applied based on the circumstances (and good play), but this should not be a factor when setting the DC.

That way, if the players are able to play well, and so gain advantage, then this serves as a very significant benefit. Which is as it should be!

It seems simpler on the surface, but when you dig down into the math (see above) many people would just rather go back to a simple +2. Using Advantage and Disadvantage it is extremely easy to give the players something broken.

This is no less true of the +2 bonus. In fact, it may be more true, given that that does allow the PC to hit the previously unhittable. And those +2s very quickly add up. Because advantage doesn't stack, that problem is avoided.

For instance if you grant Advantage for throwing sand in the eyes of their enemies, then every player will start carrying around a bag of sand and use it as their first attack on every enemy

That's no less true if throwing sand reliably gives a +2 bonus. And yet, somehow we've made it through 40 years and multiple editions without every PC carrying a bag of sand, and one of flour to beat invisibility, and a mirror to beat the medusa, and string for those mazes, and...

But, just in case this is a real problem that you're facing, here's a solution: Point out to your players that their characters exist in a fantasy universe, overseen by closely-involved and fickle deities. Deities who love to be entertained, and who enjoy both boldness and cleverness. So, the first time they saw the "throwing sand" trick, it amused them enough to give Advantage. But if you do it again, it's not so exciting - they start to get bored. And when the gods yawn, that's when Disadvantage gets applied, even for the exact same trick.

(Incidentally, doing this also has the side effect that the players will now start seeking out ever more inventive ways to entertain the 'gods' with their antics. Which has the happy side effect of making your game more entertaining.)

There. Job done.

No, the only thing that happens with mature players is they don't return after the first session if they don't like the game.

How is it a good thing for players (mature or otherwise) coming back to a game they don't like?

Also those tactics are baked into the game and are a valid play style. Short of the DM banning spells or asking the players not to break the game in that way, there is nothing stopping them from taking those actions. This appears at the moment to be a part of 5E.

There's nothing in 4e stopping the players from entering the dungeon, using all their Dailies in the first encounter, retreating, and resting. Any solution that the DM employs to prevent it will also apply to pre-4e editions, and to 5e also.

Plus, WotC have already noted that with 5e they are taking steps to deal with the 15-minute AD - by setting an XP budget for the day, rather than the encounter. That way, if the PCs use the 15m/AD, the DM just responds by rearranging the encounters - instead of 16 challenging encounters, they get 4 lethal encounters... either way, across 4 days of play.

As for scry/buff/teleport, you're again assuming that WotC won't have put in counter-measures. Besides, the validity of that tactic in pre-4e was always exaggerated - even in the core, there were plenty of counter-measures.

As to judging the system. We are pointing out valid reasons based on the play test and articles.

That may be what you think you're doing, but you're really not. What you've done is taken genuine concerns, and quite possibly valid concerns, and wrapped them up in a huge amount of hyperbole and edition partisanship, to the extent that your point has become thoroughly obfuscated.

The problem is that you may well be right, but the manner in which you have expressed your concerns means they're much more likely to be dismissed than dealt with.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top