D&D 5E Why is Hoard of the Dragon Queen such a bad adventure?

[aramis erak]

The introduction covers this - using Milestone XP characters should gain a level in each part except 5. Presumably because part 5 is so very short.

Thematically, Ep 5 and the first part of Ep 6 should be Ep 5... The only reason I'm even making note of it is for AL play, where Ep 5 means another 10 downtime days and 1 rep.

 

[pemerton]

Sorry but I'm not about the DPR. Couldn't give a fig tree how much damage, AC, HP, or to hit Bob has. As long as I am playing my concept then it's all good.

<snip>

I'm glad I don't have to worry about these things with this new edition.

I don't see how this is special to 5e. You can "play your concept" and ignore the bigger picture (mechanical and/or story) in any edition.

 

[doctorhook]

I don't see how this is special to 5e. You can "play your concept" and ignore the bigger picture (mechanical and/or story) in any edition.

In theory, yes. In practice, some character concepts relied on suboptimal mechanics, though the extent of how problematic this could be depends on which edition. Overall, I think the point was merely that 5E's power curve is stable enough that virtually any by-the-book character will be exceptional in play, regardless of concept.

 

[Parmandur]

In theory, yes. In practice, some character concepts relied on suboptimal mechanics, though the extent of how problematic this could be depends on which edition. Overall, I think the point was merely that 5E's power curve is stable enough that virtually any by-the-book character will be exceptional in play, regardless of concept.

That's a positive legacy of 4E on the design of 5E, I reckon.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Two cases:

1) Wizard casts Mage Armor (or Alarm) before combat. This is the one I was discussing. If Mage Armor is already cast, Arcane Ward is already up. Sure, it might make sense to cast Shield against a foe that is paralyzing PCs or doing 20 points of damage or some such, but mostly, the Wizard lets Arcane Ward take the damage of the next hit and conserves the first level slot by not casting Shield. Casting Shield wastes the extra arcane ward points in this case and it wastes the spell slot.

2) Wizard does not cast Mage Armor first. This is the example you are discussing in your #1. It makes sense to cast Shield in this case. Arcane Ward is not up yet.

I'm still not completely seeing it. I can see that yes, spell slots can be more valuable than Arcane Ward ablative HP, but that doesn't just apply on the first hit of the day: it applies each and every time when you are hit and value your spell slot more than the HP you would preserve. If you have one 1st level slot left and you're saving it for HP, and you think you're going to rest as soon as you kill this last group of Gricks, you won't spend that spell slot on Shield even if the hit would take you down from 25 to 15 HP. That isn't unique to abjurors, it's just part of the tradeoffs of the Shield spell.

The only unusual thing about abjurors is that their Arcane Ward gains 2 HP each time they cast Shield, so if you Shield when you're at full Arcane Ward HP you lose those 2 HP. To me that still doesn't seem like a big deal, since you can recharge your Arcane Ward between encounters anyway with Alarm--and if you're in an area dangerous enough that you won't want to stop and do that, you're fairly likely to be in a high-intensity combat where that Shield spell you're foregoing (in order to gain 2 HP later on) would save you 10 or 20 HP right now, which is a pretty good tradeoff for one 1st level spell slot. In short, if I were playing an Abjuror, I probably wouldn't view the very first hit of the day as something special requiring special handling: instead, I would eschew Shield entirely when in low-intensity combats (even after the first hit), and use it liberally to stay alive in high-intensity situations.

 

[Sadras]

I don't see how this is special to 5e. You can "play your concept" and ignore the bigger picture (mechanical and/or story) in any edition.

Just elaborating on what @doctorhook replied above...there is no necessary feat tax (3e), there is no necessary ability improvement that needs to scale with the monsters AC (4e). But as @Parmandur mentioned which I agree with, they improved 4e's +1/2 levels by introducing bounded accuracy.
Funny enough, half my playgroup wishes to introduce the 2e ability scaling where the "plusses" were even lower.

I'm not sure if this is only my playgroup, but a few of my players really want to incorporate quite a few of 2e's concepts such as action declaration and initiative every round. I'm not sure where this sudden resurgence has sprung from as they never voiced such concerns during our 3e and 4e playing years, not that I'm against it, I'm just surprised.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm still not completely seeing it. I can see that yes, spell slots can be more valuable than Arcane Ward ablative HP, but that doesn't just apply on the first hit of the day: it applies each and every time when you are hit and value your spell slot more than the HP you would preserve. If you have one 1st level slot left and you're saving it for HP, and you think you're going to rest as soon as you kill this last group of Gricks, you won't spend that spell slot on Shield even if the hit would take you down from 25 to 15 HP. That isn't unique to abjurors, it's just part of the tradeoffs of the Shield spell.

The only unusual thing about abjurors is that their Arcane Ward gains 2 HP each time they cast Shield, so if you Shield when you're at full Arcane Ward HP you lose those 2 HP. To me that still doesn't seem like a big deal, since you can recharge your Arcane Ward between encounters anyway with Alarm--and if you're in an area dangerous enough that you won't want to stop and do that, you're fairly likely to be in a high-intensity combat where that Shield spell you're foregoing (in order to gain 2 HP later on) would save you 10 or 20 HP right now, which is a pretty good tradeoff for one 1st level spell slot. In short, if I were playing an Abjuror, I probably wouldn't view the very first hit of the day as something special requiring special handling: instead, I would eschew Shield entirely when in low-intensity combats (even after the first hit), and use it liberally to stay alive in high-intensity situations.

Actually, it seems like both you and I are misreading Arcane Ward.

I was reading the recharge rule as conditional on it being at zero hit points. Someone at WotC verified that this is not the case.

But, you cannot recharge your Arcane Ward with Alarm between encounters because it only resets after a long rest.


Edit: As a side note, casting Shield when Arcane Ward is a bit of a bigger deal than you are letting on. If someone is willing to do that on the first hit of the day, they are often also willing to do it on the second, third, etc., especially at higher levels and hence, not be giving up 2 points of Arcane Ward for Shield, but 4 or 6 or more. So, situation depending, it is often still worthwhile to allow the first (or even second if the first hit is in a low-intensity situation) hit to go through. Granted, if the DM often throws damaging save spells or breath weapons against the group, saving Arcane Ward might make sense. But as a general rule, using it up early is not a terrible decision, especially if each Shield spell from then on charges it by 2.

On the Alarm issue, Alarm only makes sense for PCs with Armor (e.g. Dwarves, multiclass, etc.). Otherwise, if I have a choice between using up a spell choice to up my AC by 5 one round per day or by 3 8 hours a day, I'll be taking Mage Armor every time and Alarm is not necessary.

 

[pemerton]

I think the point was merely that 5E's power curve is stable enough that virtually any by-the-book character will be exceptional in play, regardless of concept.

That wasn't how I read it - for instance, [MENTION=6776331]Sailor Moon[/MENTION]'s comment that s/he "couldn't give a fig tree about how much damage", and eschewing of intra-party comparisons, seemed to imply that effectiveness was an irrelevant consideration for him/her.

there is no necessary feat tax (3e), there is no necessary ability improvement that needs to scale with the monsters AC (4e).

These are all points about effectiveness. But I thought the poster I was responding to was eschewing effectiveness as a relevant measure for the viability of a character: "As long as I am playing my concept then it's all good."

If playing my concept includes an effectiveness component - ie if playing isnt just about action declarations and getting into character, but is also about the outcomes of action resolution - than [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION]'s metric for evaluating his wizard PC seems fairly reasonable.

 

[KarinsDad]

If playing my concept includes an effectiveness component - ie if playing isnt just about action declarations and getting into character, but is also about the outcomes of action resolution - than [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION]'s metric for evaluating his wizard PC seems fairly reasonable.

And actually, I would use the phrase "semi-consistent contribution" as opposed to the word "effectiveness", although both seem to apply. I don't have to do the most damage in the party, or delay the actions of the most bad guys, or even have the bad guys often fail saves against my spells. The actual effectiveness doesn't matter quite so much. I just want my actions to count on a somewhat regular basis which had not been the case at all for levels 1 or 2. Level 3, it picked up quite a bit, presumably because the number of spells per day effectively doubled from 4 to either 7 or 8 (actually, 3 to either 6 or 7 since one spell per day is used up for my PC for Mage Armor every day and I don't really count that). At level 3, a Wizard can, for the most part, cast one spell per encounter most days and feel like he is doing more than being a cantrip caster.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Name me a build in 5th edition that brings absolutely nothing worth while to a party.