D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

[kyoryu]

Movement in combat is important to the degree that that movement is limited. If your movement is limited, then how you move and where you end your turn become important tactical choices. If any creature can move to any position, and can do so both before and after their Action, then their movement choices (and whether or not combat is playing out on a grid) is mostly meaningless.

Absolutely. An interesting corollary is that the faster you can move, the less relevant position becomes (at least in an absolute sense).

That said, most of your examples remove tactical depth based on removal of AoOs, or by allowing free movement through otherwise occupied spaces. Just being able to do broken moves (move/attack/move) is a minor issue in comparison to these other issues.

[Gwendol]

Just houserule in AoO's; they do add some tactical depth and are easy enough to implement. I'm not surprised if they re-appear in some form later on.

[Dsurion]

I've also been thinking about all the mundane information people could use to make their fantasy worlds really come alive. Information on horsemanship and horse breeding, historical castles, how fuedalism works, hunting and jousting as sport (and other leisure activities appropriate to a fantasy world)... these elements would really help to make me feel like they were interested in actually going with the idea of a realistic and reactive world, rather than just saying "other tribes will reinhabit areas the PCs have cleared" and so on.

Actually, 2nd Edition had a really cool book called Castle Guide that did all of this. It even went into clergy as well.

[kyoryu]

Actually, 2nd Edition had a really cool book called Castle Guide that did all of this. It even went into clergy as well.

They also had a fantastic worldbuilding guide around that time. I had a copy of it, years ago :(

[Knaight]

At that point, though, you're basically relying on being in a dungeon as a prerequisite to movement- and position-related tactics.

I don't think that's a good solution.

-O

Hardly, I'm merely demonstrating that some of the described effects are more minor than described. Even outside of dungeons and such, there's the matter of positioning to alter who is in range of whom, with the use of people blocking particular positions to lengthen particular routes. A move-attack-move system without AoOs and without shared space can be tactical, as numerous tactical video games have demonstrated quite well. I personally like AoOs as a mechanic and would probably keep them, but it works just fine without them.

[navar100]

Just houserule in AoO's; they do add some tactical depth and are easy enough to implement. I'm not surprised if they re-appear in some form later on.

We shouldn't need to. With 3E fans and 4E fans agreeing on liking AoO rules along with some 2E fan support, 5E should have them in the first place. It's possible to implement them without miniatures and a grid for those who don't like them. The 4E rule-set practically requires a grid (an observation, not judgment), but 3E can be played without it. A grid facilitates AoO rules but isn't a requirement.

[The J Pizzel]

PLAYTEST CAMPAIGN: I was DMing

On the road again – 6 human thugs (2 regular, 1 berserker, 1 Sneak attack, 2 archers)
Give them some different weapons. Give one of them SA.
“We don’t want no trouble. Just give us ye horse and gear and ye can go on ye way.”
“You don’t want no part of Farahorn. That place be cursed it is. People be disappearing in the night, turning up missing limbs and such. Found one poor boy short a heart. So, we six decided we had enough.” Make sure you name the berserker Dugan and explain him as a big dude.

(Role-play notes: We didn’t have the cleric of Pelor for this fight. The party had a small camp site just off the road in a light forest. It started with the rogue up a tree, the two dwarves by the fire and the elf up against a rock sleeping. The rogue smoked his stealth and his perception so he saw them all approaching but couldn’t wake the others up in time. They baddies surrounded the camp and they spoke with the players for a minute before the rogue got fed up and ONE-SHOTed the berserker. The others were easily dispatched. The SA baddie was a pain because he was hiding in a small pond. The wizard wanted to shocking grasp the whole pond, which would’ve been awesome, but someone finally killed the SA guy before he got there. Play test notes: Combat goes much faster and the rogue can already put up some DPS when he’s hidden. No OA’s or flanking made things very interesting. I noticed the guys were immediately using hit and run tactics. The cleric of Moradin player felt a little bored right off the bat. The fighter didn’t like his squishy-ness, but loved putting up the big numbers. He usually plays insanely high AC characters, so this was his rude awakening.)

All around the world the same song – exploring the town.
Make stuff up as you go. The most eligible people of the town have moved on. A village elder, Jacobi, is trying to hold it together. Even the Lord Mayor has left. There’s mainly just poor and stubborn still here. Jacobi’s oldest grandson, Jaken, is trying desperately to convince the people to stay in the temple of Pelor at night. Some refuse and if they do then they’re on their own. He’s given some crappy weapons to the oldest kids and most eligible men, but they’re still crap. One old man, Hibben, might’ve seen something, but he lost his boy in an attack and has gone somewhat crazy. If they can get it out of him, he points them to the docks. If not they follow him. Throw in some hints about the ancient castle that once stood on this shore. It belonged to the mighty Ducaine Family.

(Role-play and play test notes: The group had a great time role-playing all this out. The ability check system worked great and they were finding great ways to use their specific +3’s to their ability checks. Sometimes they convinced me, sometimes they didn’t; but the group liked it as a whole. It definitely puts more responsibility on the DM which my group just happens to like. I used the DC charts in the play test notes once or twice, but I mostly just winged it. As for plot, the group liked old Jacobi (they said he reminded them of Maester Luwin) and respected Jaken for what he was trying to accomplish. They found Hibben in an old tower that was falling apart at the port area of town. The dwarves got to use some Stonecunning to realize that this is an old part of the town; maybe as old as the original Ducaine Family’s keep. They found some odd healing potions in an old crate buried in the keep. It becomes interesting later. The role-playing was great and everyone loves the simplicity of the checks. IMHO, it has nothing to do with the system though. I use very simple checks to solve things which can be done with any system. I think what my players found interesting was that there wasn’t any tables telling me what I had to set the DC at, so they enjoyed the time saving and the thrill of not knowing what they had to roll to succeed. I would just say, “OK, but it’ll be hard one” and I think they liked that.)


Under the Boardwalk – 10 kobolds, 2 dire rats.
They seem to be waiting on someone to return. They’re posted up in very sneaky places. Eventually they see 3 kobolds return. They’re carrying sacks, two dripping blood and one squirming. If they free him, they realize he is the blacksmith’s son. The blacksmith deserted him and left this morning. His last name was Dugan. He’s the berserker’s son. Make sure one dives for the water and begins working on the grate to show the guys where to go next. Let them camp for the night if they need it.

(Role-play notes: the group loved this encounter. Hibben pointed to the water that comes up near the port so the group all hid in the same dilapidated tower that they’d found him in. The rogue hid on a nearby rooftop. They saw the ten kobolds come scurrying out of the water and post up all along the board walk, some of them in some really good hiding spots. 3 of the kobolds took off into town. The two dire rats wandered around the port looking for prey. The group decided to take out all the kobolds still here and lay an ambush for the others when they return. After dispatching the waiting kobolds, they used their own spears to prop them up and put them back in their original hiding places. The 3 came back with dripping bags and one squirming. As soon as the first was killed (SA from the rogue) the others ran for the water. The fighter actually rolled a natural 20 and sniped one in the head. But regrettably the bag flew into the water with a squirming child in it. The fighter dove into the water to rescue the bag. While under water, he saw the remaining kobold dive in and begin working on a grate. Play test notes: This was a great fight. The group pretty much one-shotted all the kobolds. The dire rats were a little better fight, but was still one sided. One did climb the roof where the rogue was. Instead of fighting the dire rat, the Halfling wanted to just push him back over. A simple strength vs. constitution check and it was done. He succeeded. It was glorious.

Into the tunnels – 2 gray oozes..
They wait for the PC’s to walk over them and then beat the **** out of them. (skip this is needed)

We skipped this due to time restraints..

I think they came from that way – 1 gelatinous cube,1 snakes, 2 spiders, 2 kobold dragon shields.
Two kobolds are sitting next to an arch with several crates blocking the path through. There are a couple of pools of sewer nearby. When either of them sees a bad guy, they immediately pull a string that releases the critters from the crates. Behind the arch is a blank stone wall with absolutely nothing on it. Why were they guarding it? PUT A TRAP SOMEWHERE.

(Role-play notes: Not much here. Play test notes: This encounter resulted in a near TPK. The only survivor was the wizard. The snake and spiders were simply re-flavored fire beetles. I put an insane fire trap in the corridor that one of the players forgot about and ran right back through it. The main problem was the cube. He would just move into their square, they’d fail their saves, and that was it. They would just keep taking damage each round. They really bombed their saves in this encounter. I’m pretty sure the dice had it in for them. Two of them died in the cube, so each round they suffered another 1d6. At level 1 that’s pretty bad. The DC’s to dodge and break free weren’t that hard, they just bombed their roles. Eventually they whittled down and killed the critters and the kobolds, but the cube killed them all. The wizzie Ray of Frosted it and headed back into town. I will say that once again, not having fancy powers and maneuvers does seem to encourage the guys to come up with some nifty stuff. At one point the fighter asked what he had to do to slam the cube so hard he could assist the trapped people escaping. It was kind of fun to hear them come up with stuff like that. This was end of the session that night..


Don’t open that door! – 1 ogre, 2 dire rats..
The ogre is munching on a dead dire rat. It’s a grand lobby with a large tomb in the center of a long dead king. Halls lead off into 3 directions. 2 are crumbled an accessible. One is dimly lit by weakening torches.

(Play test notes: From this point on we actually had both clerics. I let them just pick up and as if they hadn’t died. They blasted the dire rats very easily. The rogue hid in the shadows and smoked the ogre right off the bat. At one point the ogre just threw the dead rat at the guys for 1d2+STR damage and they loved that. After that it was just a standard boss beat down. It was nothing fancy. Afterward they found the secret entrance into the tombs of the mighty Ducaine Family.

NEXT LEVEL!

The Hall of skeletal and zombified death – 4 skeletons, 5 zombies..
This is the first room of tombs. There’s nothing special here.

(Role-play notes: Role-play wise we got a little more in-character chit chat because now we’re dealing with religion and we had two clerics. So a couple jokes and were made. Play test notes: Of course, I had to put some undead in there to turn. It worked alright. In the description it says “may turn weaker ones to ash” but there’s nothing that explains how, since it doesn’t seem to do any damage. By the time a skeleton or zombie’s turn came up they had already been attacked, so the turn became irrelevant. Channel Radiance became real popular right off the bat as well. All in all, it was a nice little skirmish to test out the clerics against some undead..

The Hall of flying death – 8 stirges.
This room is covered in little piles of bones, ****, and dried up rat and beetle carcasses. Occasionally there’s a cat or dog or even bird. The stirges come flying in the moment there’s light in the chamber. There hiding in every little crack and nook they can find. (skip this if needed)

We skipped this..

Hall of the dead king – 2 wights, 4 zombies, 4 skeletons.
This is the place where the first king of Farahorn was buried. His tomb is practically unrecognizable. When they investigate the tomb, a LARGE TRAP GOES OFF and signal the wights and skeletons to attack. They come out of tombs in the walls. In one of the random tombs on the wall is a hollowed out vertical tunnel with a make shift rope ladder.

Role-play notes: Again nothing major here. Play-test notes: The combat here was more exciting though. No one moved near the large tomb so at first they were just fighting the zombies. I put a 10x10 spider web in the center of the room just in case someone got stupid. I had one of the zombies move into it (let’s face it, they’re stupid) and our rogue asked if his character would know that webs burn hot. I said absolutely. He spent his action throwing a torch in the web and lit the zombie on fire. I gave it a good 1d10 initial blast but then 1d6 damage for 1d4 rounds (4). So everyone began throwing zombies in the fire. Eventually the wizard moved next to the tomb which set off a 3d6 fire trap and signaled the wights and skeletons to attack. The Pelorian got nervous and blasted one of the wights with Searing Light for 42 damage. I gave him the one-shot on that. Everyone cheered the might of Pelor, lol. The other wight landed a few blows but they finished it out pretty easily. Between strength vs. constitution checks into the fire and magic missiles, they cleaned house pretty quickly. The found a few magic items in the tombs and the rope ladder in the hollowed out tomb and decided to camp for the night. The rogue built at basic crossbow-tripwire trap on the ladder chute and the wizard cast alarm on both entrances. Right at the 8 hour mark they heard the alarm go off, a twang, a grunt (a couple of hidden dice rolls) and several splats. The rogue was very pleased with himself..

NEXT LEVEL!

Guards! Guards! – 3 kobold dragon shields.
3 Kobolds are just standing guard. Use the dart trap from Skyrim. Lever is on the side near the Guards. They deactivate it for friends. When the players enter, if it’s not deactivated they take 4d4 at the top of the round. There’s a huge hole in the middle of the floor. (Skip this if needed)

(Role-play notes: this ended up being really fun as well. The kobolds that were climbing the stairs and set off the trap were these 3. The first one got shot in the chest and fell, knocking the other two off the ladder. I rolled dexterity saves for them to catch the ladder, but they both failed. The fighter got to the bottom of the ladder first and held it steady for the rest of the party. When they got to the bottom, before they even entered the entrance chamber, the fighter threw one of dead kobolds into the pit to see how deep it was. It was pure luck that he did that because they noticed as soon as he crossed the threshold he was peppered with darts. The players all patted the fighter on the back for having pure luck and the wizzie used mage hand to switch the lever to off. Easy peasy.).

We’re going to need a bigger sword – 10 kobolds, 2 shields, 1 boss man..
The meeting hall has beds, tables, fire holes, piss holes, a weapons rack, and lots of other stuff. It’s where the kobolds hang out when not on a job. Have an acolyte be talking to the boss man. She runs when **** gets real. They need to keep a kobold alive, or they need to pass an Int. (Arcane Lore) check.

(Role-play notes: this encounter incidentally led to some hilarious dialogue between the rogue and the wizzie. It went something like this:

Rogue: Seriously…just fireball the whole damn room. It’ll be wondrous.
Wizzie: I don’t have fireball.
Rogue: Huh?
Wizzie: I. Don’t. Have. Fireball.
Rogue: Yeah I heard you the first time. What do you mean you don’t have fireball? What kind of wizard doesn’t have fireball?
Wizzie: Maybe next level?
Rogue: What does that even mean?
DM: Screw it. Just say you have it.
Wizzie: No. Seriously. It’s not in the play test.
Whole group: WHAT?!?

At which point we all stared blankly at the spell sheet and wondered how that didn’t make the cut. Cure Light Wounds. Turn/Rebuke Undead. Magic Missile. Shocking Grasp. NO FIREBALL!!!!!!!

Play test notes: this fight ended up being a breeze. The wizzie sleep spelled one entire side of the room. The next round he cast Hold Person on the boss man. After that they just cleaned house. They’re level 3 abilities were really starting to shine here).

She’s a WITCH! – 6 acolytes, 2 adepts.
This is a mix between a laboratory, library, alter, and torture chamber. There are books everywhere, work tables, a small alter in the center, a rack, and many other things. A pile of bones sits near a bookshelf. A small boy is being tortured on the rack. Several dead, mutilated bodies appear near the rack. Several priests meander about. Freak them out by the half snake things. Don’t forget to use command, unholy smite. On a work table are ancient documents chronicling the fall of the Ducaine family and the locations that family went into hiding.

(Play test notes: I made this a difficult encounter by using some insane terrain and stuff in the room. There was a large pit in the floor, several piles of broken stones and cave walls and other stuff. I landed every hit with unholy smite, which I gave some nifty cinematic value to and really had the players freaked out. The two adepts were represented by yuant-ti miniatures and I had them pretty grossed out by the whole half-snake priestess thing. The wizzie stood on one side of the pit and cast Command on one of the acolytes (failed save) which made her walk right over the pit. I gave her a quick last minute save to avoid falling in, but alas, she was void of luck. It ended up being a harder fight than I thought due to the terrain and the smites/spells of the adepts. The group liked it nonetheless.


Oh. My. God. – 1 Medusa, 1 big frigging snake, 1 dark priest.
The snake attacks immediately. The dark priest tries to stay near the summoning pool to use writhing darkness. Medusa is working at a desk. Her body is hidden by robes so they don’t realize they can’t look at her till she begins moving and gets close to them. In the center is a summoning pool where she was trying to summon Slytherin, the Demon Snake Lord. There’s rubble and a few pits scattered throughout the room. After the fight they realize from her work desk that she needed royal blood to complete the summoning and she had traced the lineage of the Ducaine family. Through the ages the name was changed and bastardized to Dugan. It is revealed that the blacksmith (now dead) and his son (rescued by the players) is actually the last surviving descendant of the mighty Ducaine family.

(Role-play notes: There wasn’t much role-playing here. It was late and we wanted to finish up and they knew this was the boss fight. Play test notes: Amazing fight. It was everything a boss fight should be. I have a large dark naga mini that was just a re-flavored Owlbear. Instead of his Hug special ability I simply made it a Constrict. The snake squared off against the two dwarves for most of the fight. The priestess used the summoning pool to initiate Writhing Darkness, which literally changed the whole fight. At the beginning of each players turn they roll a Dexterity Save of 13 or take 1d6 damage and lose 10 ft of movement. The nearly always failed it. When medusa got close and took off her robes the players and characters were pretty freaked out. They had no idea I was going with medusa in the final fight. They didn’t even know medusa was in the play test. Everyone started averting their eyes. The rogue pretty much started working on medusa from stealth so the advantage and disadvantage would cancel out. Medusa loved moving to someone so they started their turn adjacent to her and had to roll a save or get bit by her snaky hair. A couple of people went down but were cured by spells or potions. It was a damn good fight. Eventually they took out the priestess, which killed the Writhing Darkness, which made the fight easier. Then they took out the snake, which then lead to one of the coolest moments in my 16 years of DMing. The fighter, down to 2 hp, had perched himself near one of the pits where Moradin, and the rogue had gone to. The fighter started taunting the medusa wildly, which pissed her off and made her attack him. On his turn, he said (and the whole group knew he was planning this except me):


Fighter: I bear hug her, look her in the in the eyes smiling, and just before I turn to stone, I leap into the pit.
Me: That sounds awesome. Strength vs. constitution contest to see….
Fighter: NATRUAL 20!!!!!!
Player next to fighter at table: HOLY **** HE DID!!!
Me: As you latch onto the abomination with your thick dwarven arms, you look into her snake-like eyes and smile. You feel your legs and arms become heavy, just as you begin lean into the pit and let yourself go. Right before you lose your sight, you see her squirming futilely under your weight. You don’t feel a thing as you shatter into a thousand pieces when you hit the ground hundreds of feet below, you…but she did.

That’s right, we ended the play test on an actual natural 20. This concludes our play-test this evening. Please tip your DM.

edit - I'll come back later and add some overall thoughts. I'm really tired of typing right now.

[RebelRogue]

Fighter: I bear hug her, look her in the in the eyes smiling, and just before I turn to stone, I leap into the pit.
Me: That sounds awesome. Strength vs. constitution contest to see….
Fighter: NATRUAL 20!!!!!!
Player next to fighter at table: HOLY **** HE DID!!!
Me: As you latch onto the abomination with your thick dwarven arms, you look into her snake-like eyes and smile. You feel your legs and arms become heavy, just as you begin lean into the pit and let yourself go. Right before you lose your sight, you see her squirming futilely under your weight. You don’t feel a thing as you shatter into a thousand pieces when you hit the ground hundreds of feet below, you…but she did.[/I]

That’s right, we ended the play test on an actual natural 20. This concludes our play-test this evening. Please tip your DM.

That's all kinds of awesome!

[MukkTB]

-Movement Stuff-

Given all of the above, you can pretty much forget about anything related to formations, battle lines, or tactical positioning in D&D Next, which contributes to it's overall lack of strategic depth.

You've actually described some interesting tactical depth to this kind of movements. Unfortunately that tactical depth allows/encourages tactics that are totally undesirable.

[Dienekes]

Just houserule in AoO's; they do add some tactical depth and are easy enough to implement. I'm not surprised if they re-appear in some form later on.

I hate this reasoning. And I say this with the utmost respect to you. But it irks me because it appears to be the go to answer for just about every argument I can find trying to critique the system. Yes the ability to rule 0 does technically get rid of all potential problems, however trying to make a fair, fun system means attempting to make house ruling a flavor thing instead of a balancing thing. Otherwise the system has failed at some level.

My example on this is the thread posted in the wizards website about the flaw in numbers between trained and untrained opponents with regards to the d20 having far more impact than it should.

The response? Houserule it. So what if technically the weakling has a 30% chance of out arm-wrestling Hercules? Obviously Herc should win, so just houserule that he always will. Or with Fighter's lack of ability to do anything? Houserule that they can. That's not how good games are designed.

[Craft (Cheese)]

To lessen the dependency on grids, I second Craft's idea of a formalized grouping abstraction, though I'm at a bit of a loss for just what it should feature. Should there be both benefits and drawbacks to grouping, or just benefits?

I wouldn't give it drawbacks or benefits. If you're curious, here's exactly what I had in mind:

- All PCs start out in the same Group by default. The DM can rule that they're in specific grouping if the context makes sense, otherwise the players can choose to group with each other however they like. Monsters can be in whatever grouping the DM wants, but unless the context calls for it they should stay out of the player's groups.

- A movement action consists of either moving from your current group to another, or breaking off from the current group into your own separate group. If an enemy is in the same group as you when you try to move out of it, they get to make a free Opportunity Attack against you.

- Melee attacks (like swinging a weapon or burning hands) can only be made against characters within the same group as you. Ranged attacks (like bows or magic missiles) can only be made against a character not in the same group as you. AoE attacks (like fireballs) target a group as a whole and do damage to everyone within that group.


The system starts to break down if we start talking about larger-scale combats involving huge distances or huge numbers of characters on both sides. Still though, I think it could work quite well for standard "4-5 PCs encounter 4-5 Monsters when they walk into a room" scenario.

[kyoryu]

The response? Houserule it. So what if technically the weakling has a 30% chance of out arm-wrestling Hercules? Obviously Herc should win, so just houserule that he always will. Or with Fighter's lack of ability to do anything? Houserule that they can. That's not how good games are designed.

Actually, I don't mind the general rule of "only roll when the contest is in doubt" as a way of smoothing out the extremes either way.

"Just add AoOs to the game" bugs me a heck of a lot more. If I want to design my own combat system, I will, and I don't need to pay for that. And it seems highly unlikely that adding something like AoOs won't have unintended consequences.

[Dienekes]

Actually, I don't mind the general rule of "only roll when the contest is in doubt" as a way of smoothing out the extremes either way.

"Just add AoOs to the game" bugs me a heck of a lot more. If I want to design my own combat system, I will, and I don't need to pay for that. And it seems highly unlikely that adding something like AoOs won't have unintended consequences.

Here's the disconnect I have. If there is a 30% chance that Herc is gonna lose, then by definition the check is in doubt.

[navar100]

I hate this reasoning. And I say this with the utmost respect to you. But it irks me because it appears to be the go to answer for just about every argument I can find trying to critique the system. Yes the ability to rule 0 does technically get rid of all potential problems, however trying to make a fair, fun system means attempting to make house ruling a flavor thing instead of a balancing thing. Otherwise the system has failed at some level.

My example on this is the thread posted in the wizards website about the flaw in numbers between trained and untrained opponents with regards to the d20 having far more impact than it should.

The response? Houserule it. So what if technically the weakling has a 30% chance of out arm-wrestling Hercules? Obviously Herc should win, so just houserule that he always will. Or with Fighter's lack of ability to do anything? Houserule that they can. That's not how good games are designed.

Instead of calling it D&D Next, perhaps D&D Oberoni?

[Fatebreaker]

The system starts to break down if we start talking about larger-scale combats involving huge distances or huge numbers of characters on both sides. Still though, I think it could work quite well for standard "4-5 PCs encounter 4-5 Monsters when they walk into a room" scenario.

You could do things like, "you are two empty-groups away from the monsters" if you want to add longer distances or larger areas. Or break up a room into zones. A small courtyard might have the courtyard zone (center), plus ancillary zones at the gatehouse entrance (south), the keep entrance (north), the parapet stairs (east), and the secondary buildings (west). So a fighter taking up position in the courtyard zone can effectively dominate the battlefield by restricting access to other zones, without us worrying too much about where, exactly, he is. And that still leaves plenty of narrative goodness -- the rogue dashing up the parapet steps, dueling with the assassin, the wizard at the gatehouse trading spells with the warlock at the keep, and so on. If the rogue advances too far, a new zone opens up (the east castle walls zone), and so on an so forth.

Food for thought, anyhow.

Instead of calling it D&D Next, perhaps D&D Oberoni?

*ba-dum-cha!*

[holywhippet]

Rogue: Seriously…just fireball the whole damn room. It’ll be wondrous.
Wizzie: I don’t have fireball.
Rogue: Huh?
Wizzie: I. Don’t. Have. Fireball.
Rogue: Yeah I heard you the first time. What do you mean you don’t have fireball? What kind of wizard doesn’t have fireball?
Wizzie: Maybe next level?
Rogue: What does that even mean?
DM: Screw it. Just say you have it.
Wizzie: No. Seriously. It’s not in the play test.
Whole group: WHAT?!?

At which point we all stared blankly at the spell sheet and wondered how that didn’t make the cut. Cure Light Wounds. Turn/Rebuke Undead. Magic Missile. Shocking Grasp. NO FIREBALL!!!!!!!

Which leads to me to question something about the spells they selected. The wizard doesn't have fireball or equivalent (technically it's always been a level 3 spell anyway so fair enough). But the cleric ofPelor has the sunburst spell which does 2d8 + 3 damage to everything withing 10 feet of you. On top of that, it lasts until the start of your next turn so any enemies that were within range and survive take even more damage when their turn starts. That's pretty lethal for a level 2 spell - and kind of surprising for a cleric to have that kind of damage output.

Especially strange since the cleric of Moradin only gets the battle psalm spell which makes everyone in the party do +2 damage. Not really balanced.

[TuggyNE]

Instead of calling it D&D Next, perhaps D&D Oberoni?

My good sir, please accept this internet as a small token of my gratitude for your inspiring snark.

[lesser_minion]

I find it humorous interesting that when AoO's were first introduced in 3.0 I was quite apprehensive about them, mostly out of concern it would be unfair to PCs especially in the example given of Mialee suffering an extra attack from a spider on her arm for the audacity of attacking it where as if she did nothing she would have been bit once less. Today I find them a valuable rule that add fun to the game that players can take advantage of and would be annoyed if 5E got rid of them.

That example was horribly mishandled. The spider was on her, therefore it was grappling her. It wasn't an unarmed attack she made, it was an attempt to escape from a grapple she hadn't initiated.

It wasn't the fault of the attack of opportunity rules that the DM sucked.

In fact, that spider made no sense at all. It was far too large for it too have made any sense for it to land on her back the way it did (land on her back and knock her to the floor with a bonus for falling from the ceiling, maybe, but they described it as being about an order of magnitude smaller than it really was).

[Clawhound]

The response? Houserule it. So what if technically the weakling has a 30% chance of out arm-wrestling Hercules? Obviously Herc should win, so just houserule that he always will. Or with Fighter's lack of ability to do anything? Houserule that they can. That's not how good games are designed.

The good thing about rules is that they give the players firm ideas about what they can and can't do. The bad thing about rules is that they give the players firm ideas about what they can and can't do.

All RPG rules come with an opportunity cost. That cost is how your players think in a situation. 3.X brought in lots of good rules, but it also lost that rich ingenuity that was the hallmark of previous editions.

What is it that makes a good D&D game? Is it "good rules", or is it "player experience"?

In my opinion, RPG rules are best when they bring a situation to life in such a way that your players make rational, if not downright cool decisions. RPG rules are worst when players don't realize that they've happily locked themselves into boxes.

[Oracle_Hunter]

What is it that makes a good D&D game? Is it "good rules", or is it "player experience"?

Good player experiences that stem from good rules

If you have a good Player Experience despite the rules, then you were better off not buying the game in the first place.

Any rules set which does not produce good Player Experiences is not, IMHO, a good rules set.

* * *

IMHO, Good Rules are those which contribute to the Purpose of the game. Ideally, such Rules should also be clearly and concisely written and capable of being resolved at appropriate speed. Such rules will be easily understandable by the Players and, therefore, give them an idea what they are and are not capable of doing.

[Dienekes]

The good thing about rules is that they give the players firm ideas about what they can and can't do. The bad thing about rules is that they give the players firm ideas about what they can and can't do.

All RPG rules come with an opportunity cost. That cost is how your players think in a situation. 3.X brought in lots of good rules, but it also lost that rich ingenuity that was the hallmark of previous editions.

What is it that makes a good D&D game? Is it "good rules", or is it "player experience"?

In my opinion, RPG rules are best when they bring a situation to life in such a way that your players make rational, if not downright cool decisions. RPG rules are worst when players don't realize that they've happily locked themselves into boxes.

Yes, but personally I'd like some consistency or at least guidelines in how things should be ruled. What a Fighter currently has is an attack with 6 accuracy that does 2d6+7 damage. It is perfectly legitimate to say: Or something that the GM thinks is roughly as useful as that like say tripping a guy or disarming him, really it's up to you GM go to town.

I've played rules light games and had a good time.

However, in D&D half the classes are given strict limits and procedures on how they can do things. Spells have a stated affect, are gained a stated way, are as hard to accomplish as stated. I don't think this mix is good as the mentality it creates is disjointed and at odds with itself.

I'd actually be really fine if the game did something like this:

Martial Maneuvers
Often a martial character will want to do more than just whack an enemy repeatedly over the head. They'll want options to do cool tricks as well, ultimately how they are implemented is up to the GM but here are some examples we find most useful

Parry: Make a melee attack roll against the melee attack roll of the opponent. If your attack roll is higher than the opponents the attack roll is negated. Each additional use of Parry suffers a -2 penalty to the attack roll.

Trip: As an action make a Strength or Dex check opposed by the opponents Dexterity Save. If successful the opponent is knocked prone

Push Back: As an action make a Strength check opposed by the opponents Con save. If successful the opponent is pushed back 5 feet.

Just this establishes a precedent for later maneuvers. Attack rolls to connect the maneuvers do not appear to be required, these types of maneuvers don't do any damage, there is no penalty when attempting these maneuvers the first time in a round, and so forth. Establishing precedents can be great for just helping to align expectations of what a character can potentially do while giving a basic outline of how the GM would go about doing it in a fair, balanced way.

Right now, we have nothing. As a GM it is completely legitimate for me to say when the fighter asks to knock down the goblin warchief "No, you can't do that" or perhaps even worse "Go ahead, you have to land an attack against the goblin at -5 penalty because it's harder to really get close enough for a good push than just landing a hit. Then make a Strength check DC 20."

Now of course, that's a bit of hyperbole there. But personally I don't like when my characters strengths and limitations are up so completely upon the judgment of someone who is not me, whose fairness of reasoning is not ultimately known to me.

[Stubbazubba]

I like both Craft and Fatebreaker's ideas, Fatebreaker's in particular is something I've designed with and around before.

You then begin to make Feats and/or Class Features which utilize such a setup: Rogues can withdraw from a melee without provoking an AoO if they weren't attacked between their last turn and now, or, if they were, then with a successful stealth check. Fighters or Paladins may forfeit their Action but get to attack any creature that moves into their melee and/or zone. The Slayer theme allows you to prevent creatures from withdrawing from melee if you hit them and deal damage on your AoO. Spells can teleport you in or out of a group without provoking an AoO. Stuff like that. Then, all of a sudden, even without grids, the tactical depth begins to return, but it's streamlined and easier to decide what to do.

[JoeMac307]

Right now, we have nothing. As a GM it is completely legitimate for me to say when the fighter asks to knock down the goblin warchief "No, you can't do that" or perhaps even worse "Go ahead, you have to land an attack against the goblin at -5 penalty because it's harder to really get close enough for a good push than just landing a hit. Then make a Strength check DC 20."

I just finally had a chance to run the Caves of Chaos play test with four players last night, one who was a veteran player, two who have been playing for a couple of years, and one who never played before.

As the GM, I really liberally interpretted the rule "The only limits to the actions you can take are your imagination and your ability scores."

If it was creative and fun and relatively logical, and it didn't take the challenge out of the game, I let my players try anything.

They went into the goblin cave first, and executed the chieftian right away, and then basically cowed the remaining goblins into being their "army". They then led this army into the kobold cave, and all kinds of chaos ensued, with kobolds pushing goblins into open pits, goblins defecting and running away, and PCs getting swarmed by kobolds. Unfortunately, time ran out at that point and everyone had to go home, but they sure as heck had fun along the way.

When my players wanted to try a new and interesting attack or action, I didn't make it super hard or super easy... what is the fun in that? I just tried to think of an appropriate Ability Check or Contest, and assign a DC in my head, and then run with it and see what happens.

For example, after slaying the goblin chieftian and pronouncing the Cleric of Moradin as the new goblin leader, my players took the time to speak with the goblins before just going to sleep (I assumed one or two goblins spoke Common and/or Dwarf). While talking to the goblins, one of the little monsters voiced some type of complaint, and the (neutral evil hired gun) dwarf fighter lopped his head off with his axe. The player said "I was waiting for one of those goblins to get uppity and say something... I wasn't about to go to sleep without showing them who's boss."

I thought that was funny as hell, and pretty damn smart (I was planning on slaughtering all the PCs in their sleep if possible), so I asked him to roll a Charisma check, with a +3 for his Intimidate skill and a +2 situational modifier (since he just chopped off a head). I assigned a DC 15 in my head, which he beat, so I decided that the goblins wouldn't revolt... at least not yet, and the players could safely sleep through the night. Of course I kept this to myself, but I felt it was a quick, easy and fair way to resolve whether or not the Dwarf Fighter's improvised attempt to scare the hell out of any potential rebels worked (it basically had a 55% chance to succeed, which seemed about right).

I also assigned the full 100 XP for defeating the goblin solely to the Dwarf Fighter, not only because he killed it singlehandedly, but also because it was in character (he was brought along as the nasty, no-nonsense muscle needed by the two more diplomatic-minded, yet desperate, clerics) and because the player used the Fighter to do more than just "hit the monster with the axe, again" (although it did involve murder and axes ).

My point is, if you want to try to knock down a goblin, a GM should be able to easily come up with a fast and simple way to resolve that action. There is no reason a GM should say "No, you can't do that" or give you some ridiculous penalty to hit. Where is the fun in that? How does that reward creativity and role playing? I would just make it a Strength and/or Dexterity Contest, and if you fail, there is a consequence, like the goblin gets a free swing at you or something. Does this really need to be codified?

[Dienekes]

If every GM was you, then no it would not be necessary. But all GMs are not you. There are good GMs, bad GMs, GMs who just don't get balance, GMs who think that magic should be completely superior to mundane methods of doing things, ect.

To go by what you even said: If they fail the target gets a free attack. Let's say that doesn't happen, if you fail you just fail. That can widely alter the effectiveness of the character and changes the risk vs reward dynamic.

Now, I'm not saying that if you want to play it that way, you can't. It's your game. So long as your players continue to show up whatever your doing is working. But I prefer, at least, a consistent baseline to work from there.

Of course, instead I believe that what we're going to get is ToB style martial maneuvers which will instead mean if you don't have a certain feat you can't do anything at all. Which could be better, or much, much worse depending on the complexity, and originality shown in these maneuvers.

[Gwendol]

I hate this reasoning. And I say this with the utmost respect to you. But it irks me because it appears to be the go to answer for just about every argument I can find trying to critique the system. Yes the ability to rule 0 does technically get rid of all potential problems, however trying to make a fair, fun system means attempting to make house ruling a flavor thing instead of a balancing thing. Otherwise the system has failed at some level.

My example on this is the thread posted in the wizards website about the flaw in numbers between trained and untrained opponents with regards to the d20 having far more impact than it should.

The response? Houserule it. So what if technically the weakling has a 30% chance of out arm-wrestling Hercules? Obviously Herc should win, so just houserule that he always will. Or with Fighter's lack of ability to do anything? Houserule that they can. That's not how good games are designed.

And likewise, I happen to agree. Note one thing though: the ogres still have reach, and I wouldn't be surprised to see AoO rules appear in the coming playtest(s).

[Clawhound]

My point is, if you want to try to knock down a goblin, a GM should be able to easily come up with a fast and simple way to resolve that action. There is no reason a GM should say "No, you can't do that" or give you some ridiculous penalty to hit. Where is the fun in that? How does that reward creativity and role playing? I would just make it a Strength and/or Dexterity Contest, and if you fail, there is a consequence, like the goblin gets a free swing at you or something. Does this really need to be codified?

Nope. Nothing needs to be codified, be you a good DM or a bad one.

You should always start by writing reasonable rules for reasonable people and get those rules straight. (What is "reasonable" does differ by people, so you won't please everyone.)

For good DM's, the rules are a great springboard. Quality rules help, but imperfections are no hindrance to a good game.

For bad DM's, the rules don't matter anyway, and they will always find a way to ruin the game. A bad DM will ruin any set of rules, so I don't think that you should write rules to correct for them. All you get is increasingly complicated rules that fail to meet their design objective.

What you should consider are these types of conflicting preferences: detail and generality, theatre of the mind and battle grid, simulation and abstraction. Those trade-offs matter far more than good DM/bad DM. And in any playgroup, you will come up with players who prefer each of those styles of play.

[Knaight]

Nope. Nothing needs to be codified, be you a good DM or a bad one.

You should always start by writing reasonable rules for reasonable people and get those rules straight. (What is "reasonable" does differ by people, so you won't please everyone.)

Reasonable rules include reasonably complete rules. D&D is a very combat focused game, and for a combat focused game to have gigantic holes in the combat system is a screw up. This is a game with combat oriented spell after combat oriented spell, several combat dedicated stats, armor lists, weapon lists, so on and so forth. It has tactical movement rules. At the level of abstraction it is working at, just sort of leaving out pushes is like forgetting to include swords and bows on the weapons list.

[Dienekes]

Nope. Nothing needs to be codified, be you a good DM or a bad one.

You should always start by writing reasonable rules for reasonable people and get those rules straight. (What is "reasonable" does differ by people, so you won't please everyone.)

For good DM's, the rules are a great springboard. Quality rules help, but imperfections are no hindrance to a good game.

For bad DM's, the rules don't matter anyway, and they will always find a way to ruin the game. A bad DM will ruin any set of rules, so I don't think that you should write rules to correct for them. All you get is increasingly complicated rules that fail to meet their design objective.

False Dichotomy. I've been playing roleplaying games for years and have met 1 GM I would call good, and 1 I would call bad. The rest are varying degrees of mediocre, this sadly is the category where I place myself.

To those codification helps to set a simple, honest standard. It allows a reliable structure that the players can fall back on when a question comes up. A consistency that can be spread through the discussion and analysis everywhere. A Rules As Written, as it were.

[Clawhound]

Reasonable rules include reasonably complete rules. D&D is a very combat focused game, and for a combat focused game to have gigantic holes in the combat system is a screw up. This is a game with combat oriented spell after combat oriented spell, several combat dedicated stats, armor lists, weapon lists, so on and so forth. It has tactical movement rules. At the level of abstraction it is working at, just sort of leaving out pushes is like forgetting to include swords and bows on the weapons list.

Dude, the designers know it isn't complete. There is no pretense that it is complete. They've told us straight out that it isn't complete and the game is a work in progress. "Incomplete" is not a useful criticism. Everyone knows that it isn't complete.

In fact, this core won't be "complete." They are going to design more pieces for later. They've told us this from the get-go.

[Clawhound]

False Dichotomy. I've been playing roleplaying games for years and have met 1 GM I would call good, and 1 I would call bad. The rest are varying degrees of mediocre, this sadly is the category where I place myself.

To those codification helps to set a simple, honest standard. It allows a reliable structure that the players can fall back on when a question comes up. A consistency that can be spread through the discussion and analysis everywhere. A Rules As Written, as it were.

Yes, it was a simplification. I'm shameless that way.

Good and bad DMs really shouldn't be the focus of a design. Consistency? I'm not convinced that it should be a factor, but I'm not opposed. I think that there are more important criteria. Personally, I prefer guidelines of rules, as guidelines cover more situations with fewer rules.