Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?

[Voss]

The XP system is all over the place.

Like, the number of fights per level runs ...
6, 6, 10, 14, 17, 16, 15, 15, 13, 14, 8, 10, 8, 9, 9, 8, 9, 8, 9.

If you use single monsters of the same level (which is a medium or hard fight at random). The charts are all over the place for the designed encounters, but numbers of monsters mean you add a fuck-ton of fights.

The encounters with extra monsters I noticed DO NOT GIVE BONUS XP TO PCs. It's just for determining encounter "strength". Which really means the patience of the PCs in knocking the fucking thing over..

No, they don't give bonus XP... why would they? The bodies multiplier is their kludge to work out the difficulty for the fight, but you still get the XP for each monster in the fight.

As far as your fights per level list goes, that actually makes sense to me as a deliberate thing. 3rd to 10th level has always been the real meat of D&D, so giving the most time to those levels makes some sense.

PostPosted: 13 Aug 2014 03:48 pm Post subject:
I flipped through a few pages of it at the local gaming store, and I couldn't help but notice that there wasn't a skill system; there were notes that you get your proficiency bonus on ability checks, and that making the DC (completely out of the DM's arse) higher makes the task more difficult. I guess this must be old news, but seeing it in living ink makes it more real.

There are hints that a larger explanation is in the DMG. Which is kind of fucking terrible retro-think, and I still have no idea if it contains meaningful numbers.

Thinking about it, it may be a reaction to the skill challenge debacle for 4th. This lets players work out what the numbers should be, and they can slot them in at the last minute before printing.

From what I could tell in that short time, there was no such thing as Base Attack Bonus, you just make an ability check against their AC and use your proficiency bonus if you know how to use the weapon; which goes up by a whole 3 points over 15 levels. I still don't know how PCs get proficient with saving throws or whatever.

Pretty much. Though there may be some bullshit distinction between an attack roll and an ability check, which affects some spells and abilities. Like the Guidance cantrip affects ability checks, but Bless affects attack rolls and saves.

Proficiency with saves comes from class. If I understand it correctly, they've adjusted them in the final version (from the playtest and alpha doc) so that every class gets one good saving throw (meaning one that matters: Dex, Con or Wis) and one bad one (Str, Int or Cha, which collectively come up less often than any one of the others). You can also pick up other saving throws through a feat (Alpha: Resilient feat: +1 to a stat and proficiency in that stat's save). The alpha rules didn't give you saves for multiclassing, which actually makes sense- picking up good saves at limited cost would be an obvious reason to dip.

[tussock]

No, they don't give bonus XP... why would they? The bodies multiplier is their kludge to work out the difficulty for the fight, but you still get the XP for each monster in the fight.

Oh, it's just I missed that during the playtest and kept thinking the encounter design "XP" was, you know, experience points, instead of not. Silly me, expecting words to mean things.

So I had just noticed what a hell of a fiddly set of equations it is to produce a number that could have said ... limit the numbers of monsters in each fight category. Easy 1-14, Moderate 1-6, Hard 1-2, Deadly 1. So if you've built a deadly fight with 2 monsters, cut one of them. Done.

[Voss]

[quote="tussock]
So I had just noticed what a hell of a fiddly set of equations it is to produce a number that could have said ... limit the numbers of monsters in each fight category. Easy 1-14, Moderate 1-6, Hard 1-2, Deadly 1. So if you've built a deadly fight with 2 monsters, cut one of them. Done.[/quote]

I'm not following you. You can totally have a hard fight with a larger number of monsters. With the way the monsters are built, this is in fact more likely. 2 CR 8 assassins (7800 xp total) can fall to a single cast of hold person (+0 wisdom saves). Either by cranking it up to 3rd level or being a sorcerer and twinning it.

Having 11 wights (7700 xp, bodies multiplier says its like a 23,100 encounter) really is a fuck of a lot harder, and it is 495 hp spread over 10 bodies, a minor AC reduction (14 instead of 15), with an extra 18 attacks being thrown every round. Sure, the attacks are at +4 rather +7 and they don't have poison or sneak attack, but there is fuck of a lot more, and there aren't many single action solutions to the entire group, especially if they split up and have some go for melee and others spread out with longbows.

Now I don't necessarily agree that 3 wyverns (CR6, 6900xp base, 13800 at the bodies multiplier) would be significantly more difficult than the 2 assassins, but flight and a good damage output does offer some challenge and your 1-2 = hard and 1-6 = moderate doesn't make any sense either.
And when you get down to it, I really want to have hard fights with a dozen+ monsters. 'Dogpile on the wizard' is boring, especially when it isn't actually a wizard and the solution is largely just 'did he fail the save or lose save?'


I think the real problem with the system is the monsters don't match up very well. An encounter with phase spiders is nothing like an encounter with owlbears, because even if you treat poison as a 'second attack', the fact that the phase spiders are attacking from 4 dimensions (front, side, above and ethereal) basically at will (they can go ethereal as a fucking bonus action!).

So the fact that both monsters are CR3 is completely fucking deceptive. The owlbear walks towards you and tries to claw off your face- this is honestly really easy to deal with. The phase spider vanishes, and later bites your head, then vanishes again. Run intelligently, the party will NEVER get anything but readied actions against a phase spider, unless they somehow go ethereal themselves.

[ishy]

Casting the identify spell on the item then reveals its properties. Alternatively, a character can concentrate on the item during a short rest, while being in physical contact with the item. At the end of the rest, the character learns the item’s properties.

Why would anyone ever cast identify then?

Unless something tells you otherwise, a monster summoned by a spell or other magical ability is worth the XP noted in its stat block.

Oh my. Levelling made easy?

[Voss]

Casting the identify spell on the item then reveals its properties. Alternatively, a character can concentrate on the item during a short rest, while being in physical contact with the item. At the end of the rest, the character learns the item’s properties.

Why would anyone ever cast identify then?

Unless something tells you otherwise, a monster summoned by a spell or other magical ability is worth the XP noted in its stat block.

Oh my. Levelling made easy?

I suspect not. Summoning spells (in the alpha doc) struck me as calling something fairly under leveled. Conjure Animals (3rd) is something a druid can do at 5th level, and you can bang up two brown bears (200xp each). Even assuming the DM allows you to set your summons to farm status, you need 7500 XP to get from 5th to 6th level, or 19 castings of Conjure Animals, assuming you're fighting them alone. A single CR5 critter is worth 1800 xp, which is still more even if split 4 ways. Plus treasure and stuff.

[Grek]

Why would anyone ever cast identify then?

If you cast Identify as a ritual, you can ID 6 items in the same time as it would take to ID 1 with a short rest.

[Insomniac]

I noticed some big hp inflation. giants at about 200 HP, trolls over 80 with the regeneration doubled, stuff like the otyugh is triple from 3.5 and is at 114.

I think they want low amounts of monsters in fights.

[Voss]

I noticed some big hp inflation. giants at about 200 HP, trolls over 80 with the regeneration doubled, stuff like the otyugh is triple from 3.5 and is at 114.

I think they want low amounts of monsters in fights.

In general, yes, there is hp bloat, which is weird since damage is largely down. (the troll is weird in this regard, 1d6+6 x2 vs 2d6+4 x2 and 1d6+3 vs 1d6+4, and losing rend)

Though most of the giants in the DM pdf are largely comparable in regard to hp vs. the 3e versions: (hill 102 vs 105, frost 133 vs 138, fire 142 vs 162)

And it isn't even universal- phase spiders lost 10 hp... for reasons. (though this seems to be an exception.


The trick will be how well the tools the party has will work out. Focus fire vs normal monsters (i.e., not dragons, vampires or sphinxes) is pretty damn brutal. The paladin can run up with a great sword and thwack something for 2d6+3+2d8 (smite)+ 2d6 (branding smite) (alpha paladin rules) +10 ( great weapon master feat, final version) at level 2. Which is a decent chunk of damage off of anything level appropriate, and scales pretty well into the next few CRs. What the fuck fighters do is beyond me, since they're stuck at base weapon damage + strength + maybe the great weapon mastery feat.

And some of the monsters can clearly fuck the party up. A wyvern can stomp down a (level appropriate) party member in one round of combat, and they need to hack through that 110 hp. And since they can fly, the great sword paladin doesn't necessarily mean shit, unless a full caster is supporting him with fly.

Spellcasters actually struggle more for single target damage (Scorching ray is about 21 at level 2), but area damage gets better for a few levels, until disintegrate wins out at 6th. But going the damage route is questionable at best, aside from having something prepared in case you do get swarmed. The irony is spell casters get better at doing single target damage for free as they level up. Firebolt (cantrip) is 3d10 at 11th level, which is close enough to scorching rays damage output (16 vs 21) that I don't know why you'd cast the latter. +5 is neat, but not at the cost of a slot (and importantly a preparation slot) vs entirely free.

Spell prep is going to be a big deal, since the types of fights you can run into don't necessarily have much in common.


Once you get up to about 6th level, almost everything shown is about 100+ hp and large (or bigger), but given the sheer quantity of such monsters I fully expect people to throw CR 1 and 2 monsters at parties in groups. Because while you can throw a troll at a 5th level party (1800 xp, vs 2000 threshold for a 'medium' encounter), that encounter is seriously 'OK, I cast a wisdom based Save or Lose spell, make a DC 15 save at -1. The end.'

Tossing a mix of berserkers, thugs, bandits and acolytes at the party is far more interesting.

[malak]

I noticed some big hp inflation. giants at about 200 HP, trolls over 80 with the regeneration doubled, stuff like the otyugh is triple from 3.5 and is at 114.

I think they want low amounts of monsters in fights.

Seeing how they didn't learn from 4e, they will probably just update the monster math with a later MM...

[Voss]

I noticed some big hp inflation. giants at about 200 HP, trolls over 80 with the regeneration doubled, stuff like the otyugh is triple from 3.5 and is at 114.

I think they want low amounts of monsters in fights.

Seeing how they didn't learn from 4e, they will probably just update the monster math with a later MM...

I think PC power creep is the easier answer here (and will sell more books)

[Insomniac]

I noticed some big hp inflation. giants at about 200 HP, trolls over 80 with the regeneration doubled, stuff like the otyugh is triple from 3.5 and is at 114.

I think they want low amounts of monsters in fights.

Seeing how they didn't learn from 4e, they will probably just update the monster math with a later MM...

I think PC power creep is the easier answer here (and will sell more books)

after the 4E(ratta) fiasco, I doubt they would issue a big math change to MM 1 and just bury any math mistakes with subsequent bestiaries.

"We haven't worked the numbers or late level play, but whatevs. we got to keep our jobs through 4 Christmases."-Mearls And Friends.

edit: even half the level 5 stuff is past 85 hp. a good deal of the CR 3 stuff is 60 plus.

[ishy]

The hp bloat sounds like a major pain if you're supposed to have 6-8 medium or hard encounters a day.

[OgreBattle]

Do fighters have enhanced damage output then? How good are non-magic users at dishing out hitpoint damage?

[Rawbeard]

a lot of slashy stabby types get extra attacks, so they do some extra damage. fighter seems to get those sooner and more of them. he should be able to compete with cantrips, and I foolishly assume he will do at least ok.

[Ghremdal]

A level 20 fighter, optimized for damage, with a greatsword against AC 18 has a DPR of 43. Double that for action surge.

So not only do 5e characters do less damage (then their 3.5 counterparts), the monsters have more hp.

[tussock]

[quote="tussock]
So I had just noticed what a hell of a fiddly set of equations it is to produce a number that could have said ... limit the numbers of monsters in each fight category. Easy 1-14, Moderate 1-6, Hard 1-2, Deadly 1. So if you've built a deadly fight with 2 monsters, cut one of them. Done.

I'm not following you.[/quote]
So 1st level. What they ask you to do is sort out 100, 200, 300, or 400 XP worth of monsters (for "easy", "moderate", "hard", and "deadly" fights, vs 4 PCs). If you use 1 monster, you can pick one up to 400 XP worth.

If you use 2 monsters, the multiplier is *1.5, so the real XP you get from the fight is limited to 267XP, which is what you get for a "hard" fight with 1 monster.

If you use 4 monsters, the multiplier is *2, so the real XP you get from the fight is limited to 200 XP, which is what you get for a "moderate" fight with 1 monster.

So instead of multiplying, they could've just said with ~6 monsters you shouldn't build more than a moderate fight, and with 2 you stop at hard. Because it's the same basic thing. I'd need more steps to mirror their exact numbers. But eh, the principle stands.

Only then people would notice they're building Solo, Elite, Monster, and Mook fights all over again. Because they have. The high CR monsters are all built like Solos with Legendary actions and such (I presume) because that's the only way you get to fight them, slightly lower they look like Elites, then Monsters, then Mooks. It's 4e in an oldschool frock, only you get most of your XP for solos.

You can totally have a hard fight with a larger number of monsters. With the way the monsters are built, this is in fact more likely. 2 CR 8 assassins (7800 xp total) can fall to a single cast of hold person (+0 wisdom saves). Either by cranking it up to 3rd level or being a sorcerer and twinning it.

Having 11 wights (7700 xp, bodies multiplier says its like a 23,100 encounter) really is a fuck of a lot harder, and it is 495 hp spread over 10 bodies, a minor AC reduction (14 instead of 15), with an extra 18 attacks being thrown every round. Sure, the attacks are at +4 rather +7 and they don't have poison or sneak attack, but there is fuck of a lot more, and there aren't many single action solutions to the entire group, especially if they split up and have some go for melee and others spread out with longbows.

The guide says you don't fight that before 15th level. PCs who care to should have around 24 AC and +14 to hit, even a garbage Fireball takes out a third of the HP stack and a mere Fighter can kill, what, two per round from there? Oh, look, Clerics have Destroy Undead (CR 3), so mass save or die a couple times. Yeh, it's not super quick, but they can't hurt anyone so everything is just resource and time management.

Compare 3x Young Green Dragon, or 3x T-Rex, or 3x Frost Giant, more "deadly" fights at level 15. Those things can at least deal damage. How about 1x Adult Red Dragon, a mere "hard" fight? Hope your Wizard's got a decent Con to survive round 1. It just doesn't add up, the limits on numbers are to keep up the pace, not save you from losing. 100 Wights is just so much free-but-painfully-slow XP otherwise.

Now I don't necessarily agree that 3 wyverns (CR6, 6900xp base, 13800 at the bodies multiplier) would be significantly more difficult than the 2 assassins, but flight and a good damage output does offer some challenge and your 1-2 = hard and 1-6 = moderate doesn't make any sense either.

I'm not saying they should change it, I'm saying that's what they did, just with backward math. That one's a "deadly" fight at level 11, the Assassins too, the four PC levels between that and when you might face the Wights don't mean as much in 5e, but it's still gear, spells, hit points, and stupid number stacking to get further off the RNG, against monsters with bigger numbers that you might not quite be immune to (though, 5e, so maybe you are).

[Ferret]

there are scans of the retail PHB out on the various *chans - and a log in for the D&D Encounters portal which provides access to the first third or so of Hoard of the Dragon Queen.

[Voss]

[quote="tussock]
So I had just noticed what a hell of a fiddly set of equations it is to produce a number that could have said ... limit the numbers of monsters in each fight category. Easy 1-14, Moderate 1-6, Hard 1-2, Deadly 1. So if you've built a deadly fight with 2 monsters, cut one of them. Done.

I'm not following you.

So 1st level. What they ask you to do is sort out 100, 200, 300, or 400 XP worth of monsters (for "easy", "moderate", "hard", and "deadly" fights, vs 4 PCs). If you use 1 monster, you can pick one up to 400 XP worth.

If you use 2 monsters, the multiplier is *1.5, so the real XP you get from the fight is limited to 267XP, which is what you get for a "hard" fight with 1 monster.

If you use 4 monsters, the multiplier is *2, so the real XP you get from the fight is limited to 200 XP, which is what you get for a "moderate" fight with 1 monster.

So instead of multiplying, they could've just said with ~6 monsters you shouldn't build more than a moderate fight, and with 2 you stop at hard. Because it's the same basic thing. I'd need more steps to mirror their exact numbers. But eh, the principle stands.

Only then people would notice they're building Solo, Elite, Monster, and Mook fights all over again. Because they have. The high CR monsters are all built like Solos with Legendary actions and such (I presume) because that's the only way you get to fight them, slightly lower they look like Elites, then Monsters, then Mooks. It's 4e in an oldschool frock, only you get most of your XP for solos..[/quote]

Ah, I see what you're saying now. The trouble is though, single monster encounters are both really boring and legendaries aside (because of stupid bullshit gimmicks) really easy. Its just a test of rocket launcher tag with save or lose spells, either by trial and error (which will consume a couple extra resources) or system knowledge (where you know which save is weakest) which changes to single action fights, maybe a few more if save rolls go well.

Either playing or DMing, I wouldn't want to deal with that sort of shit- a tactically mixed fight with more options has a lot more potential.

As for assassins vs wights, to be honest I just grabbed stuff to fill out numbers. Which is the real problem- selecting anything by just CR is a huge trap, because it doesn't even touch on what the opposition (or the players) can actuallly do.

[malak]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... ts-Collect

A critical and fair review of the 5e PHB....muahaha. No.

[infected slut princess]

Why the fuck are Dragonborn in this game? Dragonborn are worse than AIDS and if anyone wanted to play in my game as a Dragonborn character I would tell them to go fuck themselves. If you want to play as a Dragonborn character, you are implicitly making the confession that you are a fucking loser. FUCK YOU.

[Rawbeard]

do they still have dragontits?

[icyshadowlord]

Why the fuck are Dragonborn in this game? Dragonborn are worse than AIDS and if anyone wanted to play in my game as a Dragonborn character I would tell them to go fuck themselves. If you want to play as a Dragonborn character, you are implicitly making the confession that you are a fucking loser. FUCK YOU.

I don't like the Dragonborn myself, but that level of hate just seems a bit extreme. What did they do to you?

[nockermensch]

I don't like the Dragonborn myself, but that level of hate just seems a bit extreme. What did they do to you?

Drooling incoherent rage at anything 4E-related is business as usual for ISP.

[Amalie Gaston]

do they still have dragontits?

As far as I can tell, no. None of the 5e art of them I've seen have tits.

[OgreBattle]

I like the draconians Keith Parkinson painted:


I'd be fine with saying "their wings are only used for gliding, here's a piddly bonus to jump/fall". If you're going to have a scaly dragon person they ought to have a tail. Using the Draconian aesthetic for Dragonborn would've made me happy.

For more lizardry lookin' lizardmen I like the look of FFXI's Mamool Ja and XIV's Amal'ja:

Tieflings already cover "has horns, a tail, and tits" as a race. It strikes me as a very strange design decision to not give dragonborn tails.