D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times

[navar100]

What I might be able to get behind is escalating spells. Instead of a spell taking 3 rounds to charge and then POW, have it do something relatively minor the first round. Second round, it intensifies... and builds up to greater and greater power as long as the wizard concentrates on it. A lightning storm spell, for instance, might give a single bolt the first round, a bolt with a short-range chaining effect the second, and full bolts into multiple targets on the third, a cloudkill might get progressively more toxic the longer the wizard concentrates on it, while a phantasmal killer effect might need to build up the fear level over several rounds before becoming a save or die. This allows wizards to have powerful effects and to be able to contribute every round, without being able to have that effect available immediately - and if the tactical situation changes so that the original spell is no longer appropriate, they can drop it for another.

Interesting. As long as the first effect upon casting is significant enough I could possibly go for this. For example, Phantasmal Killer starts off as target is Shaken, then Frightened, then save or die. Maybe Panicked before save or die. Presuming going back to pre 4E spells, it still wouldn't be like 3E. To build up 1st level spell effects would be stretching. For example, I wouldn't want to have to concentrate 4 rounds to get Shield up to +4 AC. If I'm not getting the +4 AC immediately it's not worth it. What you're kind of proposing is the augmentation concept of Psionics using rounds of concentration instead of power point expenditure, but at least the spell is still doing something significant while concentrating. Shield would give you +4 AC at 1st level. However, when you're 10th level, perhaps a move equivalent action can have you concentrate to increase the AC by 2 each round you do, up to some max. The devil is in the details, but I like the idea. Sounds like fun.

[Alejandro]

It was very clear to me that they do not want their new edition to be 4.5. However, there are 4th Edition concepts present in the (super early alpha) play test. That said, they are not predominant.

There are (spellcasting) concepts in this thread that appeared in our playtest, but the largest differences have not been discussed.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Cool. That sounds kinda positive.

The more I think about it- 6 saves sounds like a good idea.

[kyoryu]

It was very clear to me that they do not want their new edition to be 4.5. However, there are 4th Edition concepts present in the (super early alpha) play test. That said, they are not predominant.

There are (spellcasting) concepts in this thread that appeared in our playtest, but the largest differences have not been discussed.

Random char gen sounds like a throwback to 1/2e. Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease.

[Maxios]

To Alejandro: What edition was the playtest most like?

Edit: Also, can you give some general information on how the skill system was?

[Tyndmyr]

Random char gen sounds like a throwback to 1/2e. Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease.

Yeah, I'd enjoy it. I might not actually use it very often, but such things are a fun once in a while kind of thing.

[Alejandro]

Random char gen sounds like a throwback to 1/2e. Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease.

There was no information on character generation or how it would be done. We were handed pre made, 1st level PCs, and we had to give the character sheets back after we were finished.

[NinjaStylerobot]

What where you fighting and where-

was there a boss monster?

[Alejandro]

To Alejandro: What edition was the playtest most like?

Edit: Also, can you give some general information on how the skill system was?

I can't really answer those questions. I will say, however, that the vast majority of the playtesters were at least 30 or more years old, and that may tell you something about who will be influencing the design process.

[Alejandro]

What where you fighting and where-

was there a boss monster?

We were playing The Keep on the Borderlands, a classic D&D module originally from 1979, obviously modified.

[NinjaStylerobot]

We were playing The Keep on the Borderlands, a classic D&D module originally from 1979, obviously modified.

What was your characters hair color?

[Alejandro]

What was your characters hair color?

Blonde. We were allowed to change our names and general appearances, but not our races.

[ClothedInVelvet]

Were you playing on the traditional 5' grid? Or have they adjusted that?

[Alejandro]

Were you playing on the traditional 5' grid? Or have they adjusted that?

There were tables playing with a grid and minis. There were tables playing with no grid or minis.

[Stardrake]

Hold Monster certainly seems escalatable to me. First failed save by the monster slows it - still a useful thing to do to an enemy on the first round in many cases. Second holds it for a round. Third holds it for caster level rounds, allowing the caster to drop concentration without releasing the target. You could add the battle-of-wills effect by having a successful stage dropping the effect by one stage if the caster is concentrating, but have a single save break the spell entirely if the caster has stopped paying attention.

Certainly, though, not every spell needs to be like this. Your bread and butter defensive and damaging spells should probably still be quick casts, and barrier-type spells such as Wall of Force should probably also go up instantly if they're going to be worth using (although they might not stay up as long unless the caster puts more time into it).

There isn't very much that can be done to prevent alpha strikes unless the DM either bans every free-, immediate-, & swift-action spell or imposes a rule stating that regardless of action types, only one spell may be cast in a round.

"Fine, you and your imbued familiar can blow off six spells per round between you if you like. Just remember that this may not be the last encounter before you can rest."

@Mystify: The common resolution I've seen for that is to have more difficult encounters, thus making it harder for the spellcasters to alphastrike everything while the fighters watch. This still needs you to have more than one encounter in a typical adventuring day to be practical, though, otherwise you find that every combat encounter is a TPK-threatening one.

From what you've said, it sounds like you're running a campaign which often only has one combat encounter a day. In a highly political campaign where that's the norm, it might be worthwhile having optional rules that limit the ability to alpha-strike - but such rules might not be necessary for a campaign which does have the expected number of combats. Alternatively, though, you can demonstrate that there's always the chance of more combats (the assassins that wait until the party is weakened before pouncing...) or set up a campaign that encourages the PCs to expend more spells outside of combat.

[Mystify]

@Mystify: The common resolution I've seen for that is to have more difficult encounters, thus making it harder for the spellcasters to alphastrike everything while the fighters watch. This still needs you to have more than one encounter in a typical adventuring day to be practical, though, otherwise you find that every combat encounter is a TPK-threatening one.

From what you've said, it sounds like you're running a campaign which often only has one combat encounter a day. In a highly political campaign where that's the norm, it might be worthwhile having optional rules that limit the ability to alpha-strike - but such rules might not be necessary for a campaign which does have the expected number of combats. Alternatively, though, you can demonstrate that there's always the chance of more combats (the assassins that wait until the party is weakened before pouncing...) or set up a campaign that encourages the PCs to expend more spells outside of combat.

Just because you only have one encounter a day doesn't mean it has to be a TPK threat. More challenging than a typical encounter, sure, but there is middle ground. And generally speaking, its normally not even possible to expend all of your resources on that one battle. There simply isn't enough time. So you can still rise up and swat the suspected singular encounter, and have enough left over to use if other things crop up.

However, I don't think the ability to alpha strike should even exist in the system, at least not as it does now. It is nice to pull out the big guns, but that doesn't need to be something that will escalate into an alpha strike capacity. Being able to kick it into overdrive should have an actual cost to it. A 1/day ability doesn't have a cost, you just have to save it until the right moment. Perhaps an xp cost, like casting wish. Sure, a 9th level wizard can cast wish whenever they feel like, but the xp cost means they are going to be more picky about when and how they use it. If everyone just goes into the boss and tries to alpha-strike it, the xp cost will severely offset the benefit they gain. Hence, you would have a motivation to fight it normally as much as possible.

The escalation idea can also offset alpha strikes. If the alpha strike effects take a few rounds to ramp up, then it doesn't end the combat immediately. A save or die effect is perfectly reasonable when the time it takes is similar to killing it in other manners.

[kyoryu]

Just because you only have one encounter a day doesn't mean it has to be a TPK threat.

Totally agreed. But if there's no consequence to the encounter, why have it? So I think that the encounter has to have a chance of *failure*, if there are no resources it can consume. But failure can mean other things than TPK.

[Mystify]

Totally agreed. But if there's no consequence to the encounter, why have it? So I think that the encounter has to have a chance of *failure*, if there are no resources it can consume. But failure can mean other things than TPK.

The encounter could have narrative potency. You shouldn't just throw in some random wolves if it doesn't matter, but if the encounter has true relevance, you can do it even without a particular risk of failure. However, having that risk is a better encounter. The battle can be dangerous but not pose a risk of TPK. If even 1 person has a risk of being killed by the encounter, than it can be considered adequately dangerous, and somebody dying is a failure sate. Other goals are certainly feasible, like them trying to steal the macguffin, for instance.

[Crow]

Totally agreed. But if there's no consequence to the encounter, why have it? So I think that the encounter has to have a chance of *failure*, if there are no resources it can consume. But failure can mean other things than TPK.

As Mystify said, narrative is a good reason to have that encounter. Just like in writing a book, you show, don't tell. The players don't give a **** when the DM tells them the dark forest is dangerous. But throw a pack of wolves at them that has the potential to inflict upon them a world of hurt, and you show them the danger. It doesn't matter if it's the only encounter that day and not really a significant hit on their resources. It has served your plot and setting. Now when a random npc in a tavern mentions that a place might be dangerous, the players know it's no joke, or at least not to just dismiss it because 'we're the heroes'.

[Stardrake]

Just because you only have one encounter a day doesn't mean it has to be a TPK threat. More challenging than a typical encounter, sure, but there is middle ground. And generally speaking, its normally not even possible to expend all of your resources on that one battle. There simply isn't enough time. So you can still rise up and swat the suspected singular encounter, and have enough left over to use if other things crop up.

That's actually kinda my point. I've been in campaigns where the norm was 2-3 encounters a day, but where the typical encounter was a level or two above the party to compensate - and that normally manages to do a reasonable job of draining party resources. Extending this to a single encounter per day, though, and you're looking at an EL +4 or +5 encounter - basically, any single encounter that threatens to drain the party's resources is probably also going to threaten a TPK. A campaign that's a string of EL +4 or higher encounters is probably going to drain on players fast unless that's what they signed up for - and even then, the limiting resources for the players are probably going to be hit points and actions rather than spell slots or spells memorised.

Mind you, there are ways around that. One could be to have what's a single encounter narratively speaking involve multiple waves of enemies - giving the spellslingers the option to blast everything at the initial waves (and be out near the end), save it up, or pace themselves through. (This could pose an especially interesting tactical choice to the players if they know the waves are timed - do they want to try to wipe out every wave quickly before the next arrives? Allow them to build up in the hopes of catching more with a well-timed alpha strike?)

I understand that there are some campaign structures where may be good reason for single, alpha-strikable encounters may be the norm - and that's where optional rules limiting the degree to which alpha-striking is possible should be used (a system that puts a harder cap on resources usable during the encounter but allows them to recover during the day could also be useful for campaigns where more than the normal number of encounters is the norm). But on the whole, my opinion is that the primary cause of alpha-strike behaviour is DMs allowing it to happen. That's not to say I don't think it could be appropriate to tone down magic in ways that make it more interesting as well (3.5, for instance, very rarely gives the ability to invest more in a spell for greater effect) but I don't think stopping alpha-strikes is the right motivation to do so.

[Mystify]

But on the whole, my opinion is that the primary cause of alpha-strike behaviour is DMs allowing it to happen.

By why should it be something the DM has to take special care to avoid?

[Stardrake]

Why should the players be allowed to get away with assuming that they'll only have one combat encounter a day? And why should the base rules - especially in a modular system - be rewritten to cater for edge cases like campaigns where single encounter days are the norm, possibly to the detriment of the way most people play?

[Knaight]

Why should the players be allowed to get away with assuming that they'll only have one combat encounter a day? And why should the base rules - especially in a modular system - be rewritten to cater for edge cases like campaigns where single encounter days are the norm, possibly to the detriment of the way most people play?

You're assuming that that would still be an edge case when the system isn't shoving the multiple encounter per day paradigm at everyone. Given that the relevant sources of inspiration (literature, film) tend to not have fights every day, let alone multiple fights per day not needing several fights and only having one, every once in a while is probably a safe assumption. There are just a handful of cases where that breaks down, which seems to indicate that the system needs to handle the edge case where there are a bunch of fights in a row (e.g. during what can best be described as operations).

[Mystify]

Why should the players be allowed to get away with assuming that they'll only have one combat encounter a day? And why should the base rules - especially in a modular system - be rewritten to cater for edge cases like campaigns where single encounter days are the norm, possibly to the detriment of the way most people play?

Why should 1 encounter per day be problematic in the first place?

[the humanity]

There were tables playing with a grid and minis. There were tables playing with no grid or minis.

I like this a lot. can you tell me how complex the characters were- did it take you a longer time to figure out how it seemed to work than you would, say, 4th edition? 3.5? AD&D? other systems?

[Eldan]

I hope this is generic enough, but I don't think anyone has asked the obvious question yet:

Did you have fun? Did you spot any flaws in the rules?

[Blisstake]

I hope this is generic enough, but I don't think anyone has asked the obvious question yet:

Did you have fun? Did you spot any flaws in the rules?

Huh, honestly I think those are the best two questions (in that order) that can be asked about a new system.