|
Post by cadriel on Oct 25, 2014 19:36:00 GMT -6
So, I came up with a micro-setting for 5e D&D and ran my first adventure in it today. On the whole it was a lot of fun.
I ran it very much by the book. The monsters I used were all straight from the Monster Manual, and the PCs used the PHB options, including a ranger and a warlock. Character creation took a while but worked well. Players got into their characters via the background system; I also used it to flesh out some NPCs in the area.
Combat felt very threatening, except when small groups of enemies lost initiative. It wasn't at the speed of OD&D combat (which, with d6 damage and minimalist stats, is extremely quick) but I think the options were worth it. PCs were able to have interesting things to do every turn, and everybody got to contribute.
Advantage/disadvantage didn't come up much, but it worked well when it did. (There was one situation where I rolled an 18 and a 20 to hit with disadvantage - go figure.) the core system has a few ambiguities that required simple rulings; nothing wrong with that. It was hard to fight certain instincts, like going for a d6 when asked about secret doors. But just asking for certain checks was straightforward and easy. Some are great ways to convey info to the players. A few mismatches were funny, like the low Int cleric blowing Religion checks.
One PC died, technically after the end of the session, because he just had to kill the Gas Spore. I loved using it as a monster, it was a really neat enigma and the veteran players didn't metagame it for the newer guys at the table. The 5e Kenku were really neat with their echo-speaking. And I really like how the giant toad worked.
I expected cantrips to be a big issue, but they really weren't bad. Likewise the short rest worked well, allowing the trip to the dungeon to include a good combat without making the dungeon itself unworkable.
The PCs didn't level up. This was unexpected, but I didn't mind; 2-3 adventures at level 1 are fine by me. I am looking forward to the DMG on XP methods.
I'd like to get a bit more of a handle on how to present challenges that encourage non-combat solutions, and generally how to set DCs at a glance.
I'm looking forward to more with this system, and I have a lot of hope for it. It doesn't if to the same niche that OD&D does but it has it's own thing to offer, and I think that is worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 26, 2014 5:17:40 GMT -6
Fantastic observations, and quite similar to my own experience. My secret for character generation is to start with some pregens. I use the ones from the starter set. That does mean a disproportionate number of elven wizards and dwarven clerics, but not such a bad thing. Players can take the character as-is or take a few moments to customize. Later on, they can create one from scratch after they figure out the rules. The fact that everyone has something to do all the time is a definite plus. This ties into the cantrip issue, and I see cantrips as being a godsend for wizards. Those rules have worked really well for my groups. Leveling up is an interesting thing, because the timing surprises me a lot sometimes. We only allow a character to level up at the end of an episode, which could be 2-3 sessions, and at first everyone did so after each episode. I find that the transition from 3rd to 4th takes more XP (and thus more sessions) than I expected, and in talking to some guys at the store I guess the transition from 4th to 5th is even longer. That's a good thing (in my book) as my OD&D games always assumed a "sweet spot" in the 3rd-6th level range or so and 5E seems to slow down a lot there. Again, great comments!
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Nov 9, 2014 7:33:42 GMT -6
I had my second game yesterday, and it was maybe even better than the first. The idea that combat is very serious (lots of unconscious PCs) without being ultra-deadly was reinforced strongly. It was interesting to see that goblins using good strategy (lots of hiding and firing bows) were a much more dangerous threat versus seven PCs than a single ogre. Numbers rule, as they had in OD&D. There was also an interesting contrast between thugs, who have lots of HP and a poor AC, and goblins, who have few HP but good ACs. The thugs were still dangerous after two of the four were taken out, while the goblins go into a death spiral more quickly.
One thing I noticed was that, if the PCs have potions and a cleric, traps are dangerous and resource-draining without being outright kills. I'm looking forward to the next dungeon I have prepped, which plays more with status effects.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 14:08:02 GMT -6
Hi,
I started my career in 5E with Starter campaign, a fellow was the DM. I am not impressed at all his dm work and the other players were reckless rookies, but 5E system is very satisfying. So I decided to deal with it in the future.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jan 19, 2016 15:40:37 GMT -6
I think 5E is a good system. By the time of 3E WotC had enough market research to realize what players actually like about D&D. And its the same thing people like about Heroes of the Storm and other online RPGs. It's what boys (in general) have liked doing since we were 5 years old. i.e. lining up all of our monster figurines and having grand battles. This understanding of the market appeal of d&d carried into 4e (too much) and was toned back a bit by adding more fluff and "role-play" elements; the equivalent of giving backstories to Pokemon Characters.
I just feel a bit bad, because what Gary and Dave created was to get away from precisely this type of miniature rock-em-sock-em game (the market was saturated with battle systems from CHAINMAIL to napoleonics. What they created "Oregon Trail meets Beowulf", but that's no longer what d&d is.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 20, 2016 8:57:18 GMT -6
"Oregon Trail meets Beowulf" Awesome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2016 13:56:10 GMT -6
I think 5E is a good system. By the time of 3E WotC had enough market research to realize what players actually like about D&D. And its the same thing people like about Heroes of the Storm and other online RPGs. It's what boys (in general) have liked doing since we were 5 years old. i.e. lining up all of our monster figurines and having grand battles. This understanding of the market appeal of d&d carried into 4e (too much) and was toned back a bit by adding more fluff and "role-play" elements; the equivalent of giving backstories to Pokemon Characters. I just feel a bit bad, because what Gary and Dave created was to get away from precisely this type of miniature rock-em-sock-em game (the market was saturated with battle systems from CHAINMAIL to napoleonics. What they created "Oregon Trail meets Beowulf", but that's no longer what d&d is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I don't mind that the original version of the game evolved. For me its not a problem to play roleplay in DnD. First campaign from the Basic DnD contained 10% roleplay, our characters made only dungeon delving, we didn't stop and thinking about goals, purposes, plans, etc. It was a little bit embarassed. So my opinion is rolplay is needed to spice the game.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 20, 2016 20:37:12 GMT -6
I would be careful with the expression, “the game evolved.” For example,
3e evolved out of 2e—okay 2e evolved into 3e—no
4e evolved out of 3e—okay 3e evolved into 4e—no
I know the IP owners of D&D would like you to believe that each edition change was completely organic and natural and universally lauded, but some see it differently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2016 12:46:29 GMT -6
I would be careful with the expression, “the game evolved.” For example, 3e evolved out of 2e—okay 2e evolved into 3e—no 4e evolved out of 3e—okay 3e evolved into 4e—no I know the IP owners of D&D would like you to believe that each edition change was completely organic and natural and universally lauded, but some see it differently. I think it wasn't goal, that every edition turn upside down everything in dnd, but today we have a easy to use, consistent and streamlined system. I think it is evolvation, but I understand that every version have its own focus.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 4, 2016 23:45:21 GMT -6
Every now and then I pick up the 5E PHB at the local store, flip through it's shiny pages; then shudder and return it to the shelf.
Far too many...words...
|
|
Dohojar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 114
|
Post by Dohojar on Feb 5, 2016 13:05:35 GMT -6
Every now and then I pick up the 5E PHB at the local store, flip through it's shiny pages; then shudder and return it to the shelf. Far too many...words... What I find funny about this statement is that I bet if the first edition players handbook used the same size font as the 5th edition handbook, they would be close to being the same page count. 5E would be a little bigger though as it has more spells to choose from for each class. Now, If you are comparing it to OD&D, well then there is no contest . OD&D will win hands down.
|
|
|
Post by everyfan on Feb 13, 2016 20:07:54 GMT -6
I would be careful with the expression, “the game evolved.” For example, 3e evolved out of 2e—okay 2e evolved into 3e—no 4e evolved out of 3e—okay 3e evolved into 4e—no I know the IP owners of D&D would like you to believe that each edition change was completely organic and natural and universally lauded, but some see it differently. I think it wasn't goal, that every edition turn upside down everything in dnd, but today we have a easy to use, consistent and streamlined system. I think it is evolvation, but I understand that every version have its own focus. Reminds me of my take on 1e-2e: by the time 2e came out, many people - ESPECIALLY THOSE USING THE LATER ADVENTURE MODULES **AND ESPECIALLLYYY** THOSE W/ THE LATER SUPPLEMENT RULEBOOKS were playing 2e, BUT the 1e core rules themselves play very differently. So 1e evolved to 2e but the core 3 books on their own can be interpreted into a rather different game
|
|