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

[JoeMac307]

{{scrubbed}}

[hamlet]

(1) I agree that he clearly does more damage with a simple attack before spells are added into the equation and that he has a lot of HPs. I disagree that this makes him better at "fighting" because "I hit it with my sword" is not the only component of "fighting."

No, saying "I hit it with my sword" does not make him a better fighter. Hitting most of the time while others routinely missed (higher to hit bonus) and consistantly doing more damage make him a mechanically better fighter. Being smart enough to make use of existing terrain features makes him, as a player, a better fighter.

(2) Of course? But now your entire ability to defend your party is terrain- (and specifically dungeon-) dependent. There's nothing intrinsic to the class that helps with this, as opposed to (say) a wizard's spells helping them wizard. Your defending capability can be bypassed by adding an extra 5' to the corridor width, fighting in a room instead of a hallway, or ... simply being outside.

Or, you know, being outside and making use of the outside terrain. The world outside of the dungeon isn't a flat, featureless field, you know. Hills, rivers, rocks, mountains, etc. ALL of them can be used to advantage. The party at my table did fight some outside battles, using the elevation of the valley walls to tremendous effect.

Claiming that such an advantage is entirely due to a dungeon is not very honest.

(3) Fighter 1 can make attacks and improv. Fighter 2 can make attacks, trip people, push them around, get free attacks at people who ignore him, and improv. I'd say Fighter 2 is better able to do his job. It's the same situation with wizards - is a wizard more powerful with a single Magic Missile, or Magic Missile AND Sleep AND Comprehend Languages?

-O

Yeah, except our fighter did perform trips, disarms, shoves and grapples, and a whole host of other things. It's right there in the playtest rules for you to figure out. And, with a high strength and a reasonable dexterity, he was quite able at them, more so than others who tried them. So, yeah, he was the best fighter at the table.

So, again, I will assert that, on some level, a lot of folks are failing to make use of what is actually in the rules of the playtest and blaming it on bad design.

[Craft (Cheese)]

But... why didn't the kobolds dart in, attack, and then step back for the next kobold to do the same? The Fighter should have been taking over a dozen attacks each round and could only kill 1 (if Readied Attacks are permitted) without moving out from his position.

Or did the Kobolds use really bad tactics?

No doubt the DM was roleplaying that 8 WIS score.

[Oracle_Hunter]

No doubt the DM was roleplaying that 8 WIS score.

How much WIS does it take to figure out "I run in to hit him, and then run away so he can't hit me?"

Also:

So, again, I will assert that, on some level, a lot of folks are failing to make use of what is actually in the rules of the playtest and blaming it on bad design.

Speaking of which...

But... why didn't the kobolds dart in, attack, and then step back for the next kobold to do the same? The Fighter should have been taking over a dozen attacks each round and could only kill 1 (if Readied Attacks are permitted) without moving out from his position.

You knew that the Cleric can do that only 1/round, right?

Did your DM actually use the rules of the playtest

[Seerow]

But... why didn't the kobolds dart in, attack, and then step back for the next kobold to do the same? The Fighter should have been taking over a dozen attacks each round and could only kill 1 (if Readied Attacks are permitted) without moving out from his position.

Or did the Kobolds use really bad tactics?

Also worth noting: Hamlet noted earlier his group found a set of full plate. Had the Cleric taken it, his AC would have been 20, vs the Fighter's 17. So you would be trading giving disadvantage once around in exchange for the kobolds only hitting on a 20 instead of a 17, meaning the cleric would have been hit 25% as often against the kobolds the Cleric couldn't give disadvantage to, and only twice as often against the kobold that got disadvantage. So if the kobolds were moving around to get lots of attacks each turn, the Cleric up front would be taking consistently fewer hits, plus have the ability to heal himself while attacking. And given the 2 hp of the kobolds, killing a kobold with every hit is easy.

[Craft (Cheese)]

How much WIS does it take to figure out "I run in to hit him, and then run away so he can't hit me?"

Well, I presume the designers have the average score of 10 or 11, and THEY didn't figure it out...

[JoeMac307]

How much WIS does it take to figure out "I run in to hit him, and then run away so he can't hit me?"

9 WIS? I'm pretty sure it states you have to have at least 9 WIS to come to that conclusion.

[hamlet]

You knew that the Cleric can do that only 1/round, right?

-O

Yes, but with a relatively low "to hit" bonus, the hobos weren't hitting reliably anyway, so it was frequently only needed once or twice a round.

But... why didn't the kobolds dart in, attack, and then step back for the next kobold to do the same? The Fighter should have been taking over a dozen attacks each round and could only kill 1 (if Readied Attacks are permitted) without moving out from his position.

Or did the Kobolds use really bad tactics?

Did I mistype? They were fighting hobgoblins, not kobolds. Sorry if I had a typo there.

And the hobbos weren't darting around because, like I said, the fighter very carefully picked his spot so that there was only one possible avenue of attack (they'd spiked the back entrance) and that the hobos had no real choice but to engage in combat or, effectively, be sealed up in their caves forever.

The kobolds got bought off (again, the fighter's idea and execution, even with a low charisma, he combined the bribe with a very effective threat of bodily harm if the kobolds didn't see their way clear to running away to greener pastures).

The Goblins were actually brought in as allies. Again, fighter's execution here. He actually brought back a delegation to the keep (you guys did put the keep in your module, right?) and negotiated a truce and even trade agreements with the goblins provided they helped clear out the more aggressive hoobgoblins, orcs, and bugbears.

Again, good play that relied on more than what was explicitely called out on the character sheet.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Well, I presume the designers have the average score of 10 or 11, and THEY didn't figure it out...

Zing!

@JoeMac307 -- if self-preservation requires WIS 9 then how do Kobolds survive in the first place?

EDIT:

And the hobbos weren't darting around because, like I said, the fighter very carefully picked his spot so that there was only one possible avenue of attack (they'd spiked the back entrance) and that the hobos had no real choice but to engage in combat or, effectively, be sealed up in their caves forever.

What prevented the Hobgoblins from moving up, attacking, and then moving back? Were the PCs fighting at the bottom of a pit or something? I really don't understand how any spot could be so "carefully" selected to negate the move-and-attack rules in the playtest.

[JoeMac307]

@JoeMac307 -- if self-preservation requires WIS 9 then how do Kobolds survive in the first place?

Didn't I read somewhere that the magic inherent in their blood from their diluted dragon-heritage is what keeps the alive in the first place?

I might have that wrong. Maybe?

[Ashdate]

I wasn't actually trying to get nasty. I'm responding from the perspective that, as a player learning how to play 20 years ago, anybody who ever uttered the phrase "I can't actually do anything here!" was, flat out, a bad player. It was not the job of the rules, DM, other players, or God Himself, to show you what to do or give you things to do during any given situation. It was YOUR job, as a player, to figure out what, if anything, you could contribute to the success of the party even if, or especially if really, that didn't involve any of the abilities written down on your character sheet.

The environment has changed. It's fine to remember the good old days where groups played in a bubble, unaffected by the experience of other players and/or the Internet, but those days have passed. The game has (for better or worse) grown up.

Heck, I cut my teeth on 2e in the mid-90s. I must have lost about a half-dozen characters before I finally began to grasp the line between being heroic and living to level 2. Crude battlemaps indicating the position of orcs versus our team, the disappointment that I had when my Druid found out that purify food and water doesn't make rotten food "new" (just unable to give you food poisoning. The mold remained). Those memories are special to me.

But they are not modern D&D, and for good reason; players demand more from their games.

I understand the argument. I merely do not grant it validity. It's a specous argument that misses a great deal itself and relies on a priori reasoning. I am here disagreeing with it.

I think you're being disingenuous. I can't speak for other players, but I've played a lot of D&D, including the 5e playtest. My arguments are therefore a posteriori.

I would argue that characters have become a lot more mechanically complex needlessly. I look at 3.x and do not see, at least half the time, what the extra complexity really gets you in the end. More rules, mostly. More is not always more. Sometimes, it's just more.

I want to say that I don't disagree with you that "more rules" does not make a great game experience. But I think the 5e playtest (that we have seen so far) has applied that "simplicity" to only the fighter. The other classes have more options, either due to backgrounds, or raw ability (i.e. spells). I don't think it's unreasonable for the 3.5 fighter/wizard warning bells to go off when you see one class who is capable of doing one thing well (i.e. the fighter) and other classes who will get exponentially better thanks to the introduction of new and more varied powers and abilities (i.e. the wizard and clerics).

Let me suggest that, rather than the idea that the 5e has perfectly hit the simplicity nail with the fighter, that they've missed the head of the nail (sometimes entirely) with the other classes. The fighter can't exist alone in a bubble; it must be compared to the other classes in the game (which is really where people's issues with the 5e fighter come from).

In short, rather than argue that the fighter is "the right amount of complexity" I think arguing that the other classes are "too complex" would be a more persuasive argument.

I also see a distressing tendancy towards "if it isn't on a character's sheet it can't be done" and the need for everybody to have something special and unique to contribute at all times. Egalitarianism taken to an absurd extreme really, that.

I have two comments here:

1) It's absurd to think that more options = less improvisation.

2) Some players want to have everything they can do listed on their character sheet. Not everyone is a quick-thinking, improvisation monster. They want the safety of a set of options, and I honestly don't see the benefit in creating a game where they will sink for WotC.

Finally, I just want to say that your opinion is noted. I know other people who agree with you, and even if I disagree with your opinion, I don't have a problem with WotC designing a very basic fighter for their game that YOU love, as long as there are options to customize the fighter to create one that I love. Is that fair?

[Craft (Cheese)]

@JoeMac307 -- if self-preservation requires WIS 9 then how do Kobolds survive in the first place?

Everything in the universe leaves Kobolds alone, because it knows exactly what a Kobold could become if it tried to ascend...

...Except the PCs. Which gives me a lovely campaign idea, actually.

[Seerow]

{{scrubbed}}

[JoeMac307]

Finally, I just want to say that your opinion is noted. I know other people who agree with you, and even if I disagree with your opinion, I don't have a problem with WotC designing a very basic fighter for their game that YOU love, as long as there are options to customize the fighter to create one that I love. Is that fair?

I know you weren't addressing me, but personally, I think that is super fair, and I hope that is what WotC pulls off.

[Seerow]

{{scrubbed}}

[Ashdate]

I know you weren't addressing me, but personally, I think that is super fair, and I hope that is what WotC pulls off.

*respec knucks*

[JoeMac307]

{{scrubbed}}

[Clawhound]

One problem with the fighter is that there is NO SUCH THING as a fighter.

A wizard is a wizard. A thief is a thief. These suggest abilities? But a fighter? Are we talking Champion? Thug? Knight? Guard? Brigand? Militia? Legionaire? Mercenary?

In movies, those things don't really matter. You get archetypes, such as Big Bruiser, Disciplined Veteran, Wreckless Upstart, Old Master, Selfless Defender, Flashy Trickster, etc. Each of those actually implies some unique mechanics.

I don't see that happening anytime, so I think that the Fighter will always be doomed to a wishy-washy existence.

[hamlet]

EDIT:

What prevented the Hobgoblins from moving up, attacking, and then moving back? Were the PCs fighting at the bottom of a pit or something? I really don't understand how any spot could be so "carefully" selected to negate the move-and-attack rules in the playtest.

The fighter, with his high initiative, readied a reaction so that when the first hobgoblin stepped up into melee range, he sliced it before it could actually attack. Missiles and spells from the back rank kept the pressure on.

The hobos tried to bull past, but opposed strength checks proved the party was stronger.

Clever use of a readied mage hand spell stopped hobgoblin flaming oil from coming at the party (a readied action and a dex check to actually catch the incoming oil and send it back).

[obryn]

I will cut this part out first:

Claiming that such an advantage is entirely due to a dungeon is not very honest.

It was intended to be a bit of hyperbole. If you want to call that "dishonest" you can.

My point is simply this: If you need terrain to defend your group, you're relying on that terrain being around, or having enough time to (say) dig trenches. Yes, there are rocks & boulders & trees & ravines outside. All of these can be avoided far more easily than, say, a 5'-wide dungeon corridor. Chokepoints are not everywhere.

(And I'll head down to here...)

Yeah, except our fighter did perform trips, disarms, shoves and grapples, and a whole host of other things. It's right there in the playtest rules for you to figure out. And, with a high strength and a reasonable dexterity, he was quite able at them, more so than others who tried them. So, yeah, he was the best fighter at the table.

So, again, I will assert that, on some level, a lot of folks are failing to make use of what is actually in the rules of the playtest and blaming it on bad design.

I am not blaming it on bad design. Boring design, sure. But not bad design. I still run and enjoy 1e; I don't find that to be bad design, either.

All of the stuff you mentioned above, with the various ways in which the fighter did cool stuff? Could other characters have done the same? And if so, what's the point of the Fighter?

Let's go down a different thought experiment. I have a new spellcaster - call him a Caster for sake of argument. The Caster has a spell he can cast over and over again. What can the spell do? Well, he can make attack rolls and deal damage with it. Want to do anything else with it? Talk to your DM. Use the environment to your advantage. Improvise.

Is such a system sufficient for a spellcasting system? Is it an interesting system? Would you pay a game designer for it? (If so, I'll send my paypal address!)

-O

[Craft (Cheese)]

The fighter, with his high initiative, readied a reaction so that when the first hobgoblin stepped up into melee range, he sliced it before it could actually attack.

You do realize this only works once per round, right?

[hamlet]

{{scrubbed}}

[Menteith]

You do realize this only works once per round, right?

Yeah, I'm not seeing why that would have actually stopped them running past and attacking the Fighter. At the end of the day, the Fighter is still getting the same number of attacks, and the enemy's movement isn't restricted.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Let's go down a different thought experiment. I have a new spellcaster - call him a Caster for sake of argument. The Caster has a spell he can cast over and over again. What can the spell do? Well, he can make attack rolls and deal damage with it. Want to do anything else with it? Talk to your DM. Use the environment to your advantage. Improvise.

Is such a system sufficient for a spellcasting system? Is it an interesting system? Would you pay a game designer for it? (If so, I'll send my paypal address!)

-O

There are actually quite a few successful magic systems out there that are based on improvisation, where the caster can create any effect desired, they just have to succeed on a skill check of some sort. You can go for hundreds of pages just giving advice on how to set the DCs in various situations.

[hamlet]

You do realize this only works once per round, right?

Yes, and it was only needed once a round since the fighter could only attack once around anyway. Being first level and all. All he did was hold his attack until the bad guys came to him. Sound, tactical thinking.

It was intended to be a bit of hyperbole. If you want to call that "dishonest" you can.

My point is simply this: If you need terrain to defend your group, you're relying on that terrain being around, or having enough time to (say) dig trenches. Yes, there are rocks & boulders & trees & ravines outside. All of these can be avoided far more easily than, say, a 5'-wide dungeon corridor. Chokepoints are not everywhere.

(And I'll head down to here...)

Yes, it was hyperbole. I knew that. And actually, "dishonest" is not the word I was searching for. I was looking for "disingenuous" rather, but didn't think of it until 40 minutes into my lunch while I was outside and about 4 miles from my computer.

And yes, it is relying on that terrain being there. Again, that's part of being a smart and good player. Making use of the terrain that's there to your advantage. If there's nothing at all there that you can work to your advantage, then you probably shouldn't be fighting there. Simple, basic tactics say that fighting a battle on terms you permit your enemy to dictate is unwise. Why aren't you, as a fighter, setting things up to your own advantage? Why does everything have to come off that character sheet instead?

Let's go down a different thought experiment. I have a new spellcaster - call him a Caster for sake of argument. The Caster has a spell he can cast over and over again. What can the spell do? Well, he can make attack rolls and deal damage with it. Want to do anything else with it? Talk to your DM. Use the environment to your advantage. Improvise.

Is such a system sufficient for a spellcasting system? Is it an interesting system? Would you pay a game designer for it? (If so, I'll send my paypal address!)

Not exactly a good example, though. Because what you're describing is essentially a warlock. Roll to hit, maybe do some damage. Uninspiring in terms of magic.

But yeah, in the end, I don't have a problem with that particular concept provided the description of your spell works out. Take, for specifics, the ray of frost spell in the playtest. As I remember it (and I don't have the rules on hand so correct me if I'm wrong) it's designed pretty much entirely around stopping one enemy's movement for a round. Right? Says nothing about causing ice buildup or anything like that. But when a player wants to use it to ice over the gong in the bugbear lair and dampen that sound, what's wrong with asking the DM if it'd work, and then either letting it happen if he agrees, or coming up with another idea if he doesn't? What's inherently wrong with asking the DM to adjudicate the situation?

Or, for example, a vampire spell caster using a Web spell to block out the sun beaming through a broken window thus preserving his unlife?

Or a fighter asking the DM if he can use his ax to trip the hobgoblin in front of him instead of merely lopping off its leg?

Why do these things need to be specified in order to be good or interesting design?

[Seerow]

{{scrubbed}}

[hamlet]

{{scrubbed}}

[Craft (Cheese)]

Yes, and it was only needed once a round since the fighter could only attack once around anyway. Being first level and all. All he did was hold his attack until the bad guys came to him. Sound, tactical thinking.

And this protected him from the other 800 hobbies who could come in and swipe at him that round... how?

Unless you're saying the Fighter made the hobbies too scared to advance because they didn't want to die, but I'd call BS on that one two: That is most certainly NOT the hobgoblin way.

[Menteith]

Why do these things need to be specified in order to be good or interesting design?

Because they're charging a decent amount of money for what appears to be a very basic system, that isn't terribly robust. I am fully capable of making my own rulings, and I've played in freeform games and enjoyed them a lot. But this isn't a freeform game, and the mechanics of other classes recognize that and are clearly defined. I dislike that the only way to give a fighter versatile options is literally to make stuff up and hope that everyone is comfortable with it, when that doesn't need to be done for other classes. I dislike that the options you've discussed regarding the fighter aren't unique to the class, and could be duplicated by anyone with a comparable strength skill. I dislike that I could receive highly variable rulings about my character, based on who's the DM and their preconceived notions about what is and isn't reasonable. And I dislike that the current system does nothing to distinguish itself from another system.

[obryn]

And yes, it is relying on that terrain being there. Again, that's part of being a smart and good player. Making use of the terrain that's there to your advantage. If there's nothing at all there that you can work to your advantage, then you probably shouldn't be fighting there. Simple, basic tactics say that fighting a battle on terms you permit your enemy to dictate is unwise. Why aren't you, as a fighter, setting things up to your own advantage? Why does everything have to come off that character sheet instead?

...Why not both? There's a lot of middle you're excluding here.

Not exactly a good example, though. Because what you're describing is essentially a warlock. Roll to hit, maybe do some damage. Uninspiring in terms of magic.

But yeah, in the end, I don't have a problem with that particular concept provided the description of your spell works out. Take, for specifics, the ray of frost spell in the playtest. As I remember it (and I don't have the rules on hand so correct me if I'm wrong) it's designed pretty much entirely around stopping one enemy's movement for a round. Right? Says nothing about causing ice buildup or anything like that. But when a player wants to use it to ice over the gong in the bugbear lair and dampen that sound, what's wrong with asking the DM if it'd work, and then either letting it happen if he agrees, or coming up with another idea if he doesn't? What's inherently wrong with asking the DM to adjudicate the situation?

Plainly, there's nothing inherently wrong in asking the DM to adjudicate. Come on now; you get on me about hyperbole and come right back with more?

I want a more robust rule-set in which the DM doesn't need to adjudicate every bit of interesting tactics beyond attack and damage rolls. I don't expect 5e Fighters to have a 4e-like list of powers. What I expect is for them to be able to do interesting, Fighter-y stuff based on their actual class features.

Why do these things need to be specified in order to be good or interesting design?

Like I said - I am not making a "good" or "bad" value judgment.

I'm talking about what I want in Next. If I want the 1e or RC experience, I still have those games. I can still play them. I have, in fact, done so rather recently. 1e's a much better-designed game than it often gets credit for, with a much tighter caster/non-caster balance than any edition up until 4e.

Putting out a brand new rule-set where the PHB is 2/3 stuff for Wizards and Clerics and the Fighter gets left out in the cold on more interesting options ... well, it's not a game that's offering me anything I don't already have.

-O