So we actually ran a 5e session... impressions [Archive]

Icewraith

2014-08-25, 09:01 PM

Rolled a halfling bard for part of the module, but I showed up in the middle of it- assaulting some sort of building... mill? up to the champion encounter. Group was two rogues, one barbarian, one druid, one cleric (for the last few fights), and one bard (me).

I'm pretty sure our DM was adding extra terrain features and whatnot to make the combats more tactically complex 4e-wise.

There are a number of places the DM ad hoced something or otherwise let us do things that probably wouldn't happen in a "Standard" or "tournament" version of the module. If we did something "Wrong" please don't harp on it, this is the sort of thing that groups used to different rules will make, and it's also a matter of group play style.

This is primarily intended to be a data point in the continuum of gaming group experiences on how the new edition rules and the new module actually work out. Feel free to respond or add your own actual gaming group experiences so we have more data points.

Character:

(nameprobablyCorin) (Hasn'tgotalastnameyet):
Lightfoot Halfling Bard 1 (Noble background)
Str 8
Dex 16 (14+2)
Con 13
Int 10
Wis 12
Cha 16 (15+1)

Cantrips:
Minor Image
Vicious Mockery

Spells Known:
Sleep
Healing Word
Charm Person
uhhh... what was the last spell I picked? Oh well.

Proficient Skills:
Stealth
Knowledge (History)
Negotiation
Insight
Perception
... I think. Memory on skill proficiencies is a tad hazy. Also I forgot you don't pick colleges until third and had to erase three of my proficient skills mid-session.

The reroll ones racial thing came up huge, turned a one into a natural 20 on initiative (which is a dex check) on one combat.

Attacks:
Rapier (+5, 1d8+3)
Whip (+5, 1d4+3)
Crossbow (+5, 1d8+3)
Dagger (+5, 1d4+3)

AC 15 (Studded Leather +DEX)
Misc equipment

Mill:
KO one third of the enemies with a sleep spell on the opening round. Skewer one kobold. Druid walked into three kobolds with readied ranged attacks and was dropped. Apparently one of the (friendly) guys hiding in the building was a cleric who somehow had plenty of post-fight healing available but couldn't have trashed the mobs outside the building. Fight was heavily obscured in places by smoke, so it ended up working out more like three mini-encounters than a straight-up fight vs 12 opponents.

On the way back from the mill:

We tried to stealth our way through the forest but triggered three of the encounters (DM ad hoced that the two people packing the minor illusion cantrip could grant two party members advantage, so we were able to negate the disadvantage on our half-orc barbarian but it wasn't enough), which the DM decided we would blunder into a glade out of difficult forest terrain into a circle with all of those encounters in it. At once. Which ended up being like 18 guys.

Fortunately I nailed the acolyte packing Bless (and some other guys) with an extremely well-placed sleep before he could get it off, so there went my two spell slots for the day. Then we got swarmed by guys and I got dropped by an AoO trying to get to cover at 3 hp. Which I shouldn't have done, because the two rogues and the barbarian took out all three of the guys who could have hit me before their initiative came up. The barbarian was dropped in the fight, the druid got him up but was later dropped herself, but we eked out a win.

Instead of a rest (apparently the module is fast-paced) and since he had no idea what proper WBL was, the DM gave us each a 400 gold "loan" for either better armor or healing potions at this point. We didn't actually end up using the healing potions, and the Barb may have ended up with the same AC but no stealth disadvantage.

Trapped area with giant swinging fists:

The barbarian begins to suffer from Worf syndrome as each encounter something takes him down. I read through the druid cantrip list and convinced the druid to replace mending with Thorn Whip during a break (she hadn't used Mending and we have free reign to tweak our characters since we're getting used to the new edition), so she wins us the combat by yoinking the enemy spellcaster onto a trap plate and separating the ambush drakes from the kobolds before they can make another round of ranged attacks on us. (Kobolds managed to drop one of the rogues that ran out of cover)

Having two TWF rogues is some nice damage at level one. Plus, even if they miss their first attack, they usually hit with their second so they don't lose SA damage.

With advantage + theives tools + aid another + a really damn good roll, we jam one of the fist traps so it blocks the breach.

Dragon Fight:

Our fight area ended up being a 3 square wide parapet running along two sides of the keep. It turns out we're fighting a blue dragon with a line breath weapon the size of... well, most of the map. This is not a good opponent when we're stuck running around the perimeter of a half of a rectangle. The dragon can effectively cover 1/6th of the available area whenever he feels like flying within range of the keep walls. We have a crapton of mooks to try and help shoot the dragon, and some barrels of oil.

For people running dragon vs. all combats: unless your archers are too spread out to concentrate their fire, it's entirely possible to construct lines that intersect six or more archers at a time. 4 party members roll high and save against the dragon's fear. After a couple rounds of fried defenders, it's pretty clear that, at least the way we're using the rules, having a bunch of mooks plink this dragon to death isn't going to work. Maybe if we had a big enough map that the dragon couldn't move on and off it at will, so it's harder for him to get out of range. Even if we save for half we're all going to get fried by his breath weapon.

So, we grab a couple of barrels of oil, stack some of the treasure hoard we got from the cultist encampment in the forest to disguise the barrels, yell our apologies out to the dragon and tell him we're leaving him a pile of gold as tribute, please come take it. The dragon flies down to inspect the gold, gets too close, and we fire as many fire arrows/crossbow bolts as we can into the barrels.

The DM rolls a d10 to see how many dice the exploding barrels are worth of damage and gets a nine- so 9d6. At this point I should mention the two natural 20s the party rolled. Those were also the only barrels that exploded, and they dealt double damage on a crit. So 36d6 damage. This really ticks off the dragon, but he sees that there are a lot more oil barrels, and the barbarian alraedy demonstrated the capability to throw the barrels a respectable distance from the walls (even if he did miss), and the dragon is aware it just lost over half its health in one go. I have no idea if there's a "Standard" way you're supposed to get past this encounter, or if it's meant to require nonstandard thinking, but our party has exchanged the immediate danger of a dragon attack for the unknown danger of an angry and wounded dragon biding his time for revenge. We have neither rested nor leveled and I have no idea how that works.

Champion:

So this half-dragon rolls up to the gates and demands single combat with our best warrior or he'll execute hostages. No tricks.

We negotiate him into a nonlethal duel, then debate over the merits of sending out a weaker character so he'll underestimate us next time, since we're sure there will be one. The possibility of him one-shotting a weaker character or refusing to honor the agreement out of disgust is considered to be too high, so we end up sending out the rage-less barbarian by virtue of his intimidating appearance, decent AC, and large hit point total (and my last bardic inspiration, which appears to be this edition's version of "bard buffs you need to continually remind other players they have").

He gets fried by lightning in two rounds, but manages a natural 20 that is apparently enough to earn the champion's respect before going down. We have no idea how treasure should work, but it's been decided we should gain a level and have a rest.

The good: We have the climax of a level 27 4th edition campaign still waiting for everyone to be available for the day it's going to take to run the encounter(s?) to wrap it up. This is way, way, WAY faster. Much less fiddly math. I don't need an online character builder to make a character, and the only reason it takes me as long as it does is because everything's somewhat familiar but probably changed so I have to re-read everything or else think something works like it did in 3 or 4e.

Rogues appear to be really effective. TWF works, at least at level one. Stealth gameplay is super valuable, to the point of disadvantaged stealth armors being a major liability in the group. Sleep is amazing. The Bard's bardiness doesn't really stand out unless he's using spells so far. Overdamage rule (you just drop to zero unless the damage from the attack would put you at negative max health) is nice.

The ?: DM mercy ruled opponents can attack downed characters to give them two failed death saves but they would merely be unhealable for the combat if they got to three instead of dead-dead. Gives characters an advantage but then the DM likes to throw multiple encounters at once at us, so it balances out.

Our later successes in the module in many cases came down to RP, non-combat tactics, or really impressive dice rolls. Not sure if bug or feature.

Sleep is amazing.
The bad: We're all super fragile. A couple high damage hits is all it takes to drop any character. Caster resources are super limited, although the situations my cantrips would have been better than my crossbow for attacking never came up. If you roll low on initiative you may never get to act in a combat.

Sleep is amazing.

Restrictive terrain has been the saving grace of the party.

A couple players noted they were having difficulty just attacking since they're used to 4e where you never "just attack". Not a deal-breaker for them yet but definitely a downer.
The ugly: WTF is a CR 16 dragon doing in a level one module?

Sleep is amazing.

Bardic inspiration seems like it's tailor made to never actually be there when you need it since it targets one character. And it's limited per long rest and caps out a number of times equal to your charisma bonus. This should at least hit the party so I don't have to play the guessing game of "which character gets this potentially important but easily wasted resource"? Bonus action activation is nice at least.

We're in a 4e healing and tanking mindset still. Spells either seem to suck or are OP. I strongly dislike having my useful offensive options and my (weak) ability to heal allies pulling from the same pool of extraordinarily limited character resources. Healing is only going to get worse as an option since HP is going to scale faster than healing as a % of character health. But it's HEALING.

The DM totally hasn't been taking much advantage of spring attacking, which is useful since it limits the number of things that can hit the party if we blob up somewhere tight, and means our front line is significantly more durable with mooks standing in front of them granting disadvantage to their allied ranged attackers.

Short rests. They didn't happen. Without houseruling, short-rest based classes can go cry themselves to sleep if this trend continues.

Ramshack

2014-08-25, 09:21 PM

Sounds like a good run through,

Our first run through was the premade starter adventure but we rolled 4 unique characters instead of the premade. We ran 1 fighter, 1 wizard, 1 cleric and 1 druid. We completed the entire module over 5 sessions, our characters made it to level 4. through the entire module we never used a short rest either. Additionally at no point did any character dip below 0 hp. Between inspiration points and clever combat positioning and strategies (IE fighter blocking walk ways and using the dodge action instead of attack) etc we cleared my challenges with relative ease.

Number one complaint through out the entire module was the extremely limited number of spells available to the casters. Most days the spells were never used because they were waiting for a more dire situation to use them.

So I agree short rests are a bad system, and caster resources are far too limited.

We will be making new characters and running the dragon horde module next week. Maybe this module will carry more of a challenge.

Also as a funny side note our Dwarven, Abjurant wizard was the tankiest character by far. Against the poison dragon we sent him in first with his 24 ac, 10 temp hp and resistance to poison and he took 2 damage from the breath weapon and never got hit.

JamesT

2014-08-25, 10:07 PM

Ramshack

2014-08-25, 10:10 PM

Dwarf gave him medium armor, 15 ac, +2 dex 17, used a shield, 19 AC, cast the spell shield as a reaction = 24 AC for 1 Turn.

Merc_Kilsek

2014-08-25, 10:46 PM

Well, my burning questions is: Was sleep that useful for a bard? Hahah, it really is amazing thou. Almost old school overpowering.

Yorrin

2014-08-25, 10:56 PM

Well, my burning questions is: Was sleep that useful for a bard?

It sounds like he didn't use it enough to figure out what he thought of it. Glad to see that low level bard spellcasting still packs a punch.

Merc_Kilsek

2014-08-25, 11:03 PM

It sounds like he didn't use it enough to figure out what he thought of it.

Yeah, I think you are on the right track. Maybe the next session will help out. I am very happy with the bard now, both as a DM and (thou rarely) as a player.

CyberThread

2014-08-25, 11:09 PM

Merc_Kilsek

2014-08-25, 11:16 PM

I've played bard from level one to level 5 so far, I don't think bard is as OP as everyone was swearing it was going to be, it has lots of choices, but nothing overtly powerful for me to abuse yes, even in social situations. Most of my things have had to relied on my teammates not doing something dumb.

I don't think they are overpowering. The bard is a fun class, like you suggest from your experiences, with a nice selection of tools to work with. Nothing negative on my part, just in a fun and playful mood tonight.

There is also some hidden text to explain some of our posts if you didn't notice. :smallsmile:

CyberThread

2014-08-25, 11:23 PM

Bard honestly enough, feels like it sorta fell into the heal bot slot in some ways. I wish you could use inspriation points on yourself, and/or some better options for manipluation magics.

Townopolis

2014-08-26, 12:57 AM

One thing I got just from reading the book, which I actually like, bardic inspiration doesn't really come into its own until 5th level. I'm interested to see how this pans out in actual play and if/how your group adjusts to the conventions of 5e as opposed to 4e (one of which is that spells are all "dailies," while martial abilities tend more toward being "encounters.")

Falka

2014-08-26, 01:05 AM

You guys played HotDQ.

Actually you can take a short rest in that episode, you just need to do it before or past the drake's attack. I allowed two short rests during that episode (it's about 2 hours total, the maximum you can do between missions while the raid is still going on.

I agree, the episode is very fast paced. But that's just for showing that sometimes, the "Wizard can rest all the time" simply isn't going to happen due to context.

People are asking: is Sleep useful? Yes, it is.

Grynning

2014-08-26, 01:15 AM

We're all super fragile. A couple high damage hits is all it takes to drop any character. Caster resources are super limited, although the situations my cantrips would have been better than my crossbow for attacking never came up. If you roll low on initiative you may never get to act in a combat.

This I have also found to be true. Episode one of Hoard of the Dragon Queen is especially lethal - any of the random encounters can easily lead to TPK. I had to have a half-dozen town militia with shortbows show up to help the party out of a particularly tough spot at one point tonight or they surely would have all died. They ended up against 15 enemies in one encounter with a party of 4, which can totally happen depending on what they do, and the kobold and ambush drake's gang up ability made it so they were just taking hit after hit.

WTF is a CR 16 dragon doing in a level one module?

Your DM substantially changed how that encounter is supposed to work from the module. It's just supposed to be a very abstract segment where he gets annoyed and leaves after taking a few hits. You aren't supposed to actually try to kill him.

Short rests. They didn't happen. Without houseruling, short-rest based classes can go cry themselves to sleep if this trend continues.

This may definitely be a problem in the edition, and I am still baffled about the decision for short rests to take a full hour. However, again, it sounds like your DM changed some things from the module. You have a full night of fighting in the keep, and you can easily work in a short rest. You aren't supposed to try to do *every* mission in the episode, I don't see how any party could survive that many encounters or get them all done in a single session.

Falka

2014-08-26, 01:33 AM

Yeah, you always need to skip one or two.

It's impossible to run them all if you keep a strict time count (you arrive at Greenest at 9 pm, and the raid stops at 4 am). Each mission takes an hour, so the earliest you will be allowed to reach the keep means that it's already 10 pm. Count the Tunnel mission, it's already 11. Leninthon is supposed to attack before 12 or 1 am, so you have only time for 2 short rests maximum.

I think DMs are forced to chose between running the Mill mission (which is kind of hard because PCs are murderhobos and won't take precautions - they pay for that - or the Temple.

Person_Man

2014-08-26, 08:09 AM

I'm pretty sure our DM was adding extra terrain features and whatnot to make the combats more tactically complex 4e-wise.

Are you using miniatures? Just wondering, because the default for 5E is theater of the mind, and I've found that when we tried 5E with miniatures the movement, reach, and opportunity attack rules are a bit wonky/unintuitive. On the flip side, I've found that the game runs five times more quickly and smoothly without them, although its a lot less tactically satisfying. Just wondering what other peoples experiences have been with this issue.

Rogues appear to be really effective. TWF works, at least at level one. Stealth gameplay is super valuable, to the point of disadvantaged stealth armors being a major liability in the group.

This has been my experience as well. Assassin Rogues currently seem to be the standout non-magical class for me, and they usually end up having to scout ahead by themselves when using Stealth since their average result is usually so much better then everyone else. Has anyone played a Rogue at high levels yet? I'm wondering if they're still useful in 5E once spell use becomes much more common/powerful.

JamesT

2014-08-26, 12:13 PM

Dwarf gave him medium armor, 15 ac, +2 dex 17, used a shield, 19 AC, cast the spell shield as a reaction = 24 AC for 1 Turn.

Trying to understand how he was proficient in using shields. Dwarf doesn't give that. Am I missing something?

Human Paragon 3

2014-08-26, 12:27 PM

This has been my experience as well. Assassin Rogues currently seem to be the standout non-magical class for me, and they usually end up having to scout ahead by themselves when using Stealth since their average result is usually so much better then everyone else. Has anyone played a Rogue at high levels yet? I'm wondering if they're still useful in 5E once spell use becomes much more common/powerful.

When the Assassin Rogue preview debuted I was on the forum talking about how amazing it was and how fun it looked to play. Everyone said I was crazy and that it looked terrible. I still haven't figured out what they were smoking.

Diarmuid

2014-08-26, 02:02 PM

Ramshack

2014-08-26, 02:02 PM

Trying to understand how he was proficient in using shields. Dwarf doesn't give that. Am I missing something?

I apologize i didn't think it would be scrutinized so hard, the dwarf with 24 ac wasn't meant to be the highlight of my post lol but he had taken 1 level fighter, 3 wizard and was a (hill)? dwarf for extra hp

Ramshack

2014-08-26, 02:04 PM

I keep seeing this posted (maybe it's just your posts), but I really dont see how a game with such tight distance/range/AoE/movement/etc rules can just be "fudged". The mechanics dont seem all that different from 3.X and the map/minis was pretty much necessary. Reach and OA's seem pretty straight forward to me, but I havent had the chance to play test the edition yet.

Can you elaborate on how you felt a grid style combat was unintuitive for those rules a bit more?

I agree we play with a gridded white board and use lego mini figs for our characters. Monsters are ussually played out with various colored tokens etc. It's hard to imagine figuring range, cover and aoe mechanics without using a similar system.

JamesT

2014-08-26, 02:07 PM

I apologize i didn't think it would be scrutinized so hard, the dwarf with 24 ac wasn't meant to be the highlight of my post lol but he had taken 1 level fighter, 3 wizard and was a (hill)? dwarf for extra hp

Gotcha - not trying to shoot down anything you're saying, it's just that I'm building a wizard and Dwarf is a top contender for race. I'm trying to see just how powerful I can make him while fitting my role playing concept, and I'm still fuzzy on some of the rules/features. :)

Ramshack

2014-08-26, 02:12 PM

Gotcha - not trying to shoot down anything you're saying, it's just that I'm building a wizard and Dwarf is a top contender for race. I'm trying to see just how powerful I can make him while fitting my role playing concept, and I'm still fuzzy on some of the rules/features. :)

Ah got ya!

I believe his goal was to take another level of fighter for action surge so he could cast two spells in a round or something later (not 100% on those rules either). But he did go the Abjuration School and his goal was to be the most durable wizard possible.

Icewraith

2014-08-26, 02:55 PM

Are you using miniatures? Just wondering, because the default for 5E is theater of the mind, and I've found that when we tried 5E with miniatures the movement, reach, and opportunity attack rules are a bit wonky/unintuitive. On the flip side, I've found that the game runs five times more quickly and smoothly without them, although its a lot less tactically satisfying. Just wondering what other peoples experiences have been with this issue.

This has been my experience as well. Assassin Rogues currently seem to be the standout non-magical class for me, and they usually end up having to scout ahead by themselves when using Stealth since their average result is usually so much better then everyone else. Has anyone played a Rogue at high levels yet? I'm wondering if they're still useful in 5E once spell use becomes much more common/powerful.

Yes, we're using miniatures-DM has tons. The DM also has a fairly large dry-erase square grid mapsheet he draws terrain on. A bit of difficult terrain, some stairs, some walls, some smoke... all of a sudden combat is still very tactical even at first level. The only person who triggered an AoO by leaving a threatened area was me, I liked my odds of taking one attack moving to cover and potentially three attacks at disadvantage better than taking potentially three normal attacks while at 3 HP.

I was, of course, mistaken. But it seemed like the right decision at the time.

I have no idea how you would run the encounter with the giant fists in theater of the mind.

Fifth edition problems- what to take as my fifth first level spell? Cure wounds even though I think it's a terrible use of a spell slot, and if you just need to get someone up the bonus action heal is better? Thunderwave even though I won't be able to use it without smoking party members most of the time? Silent Image even though I have minor image at will?

Soras Teva Gee

2014-08-26, 04:13 PM

I agree we play with a gridded white board and use lego mini figs for our characters. Monsters are ussually played out with various colored tokens etc. It's hard to imagine figuring range, cover and aoe mechanics without using a similar system.

Traditionally its been pretty easy (for me anyways) just ask the DM whether X mechanic you wish to take advantage of is viable this turn. They then say yes or they say no.

Obviously doesn't reward certain playstyles quite as well and doesn't let you "be right" when arguing with the DM about oh you can capture all the enemies with Evard's Hentai Show but not Leeroy's Fighter. Or whatever.

Person_Man

2014-08-26, 04:24 PM

Can you elaborate on how you felt a grid style combat was unintuitive for those rules a bit more?

Opportunity Attacks occur when you leave an enemy's threatened reach, not there threatened space, because spaces don't exist in 5E. Thus every creature has a "doughnut" of reach around them that enemies can move safely within, without provoking an Opportunity Attack. This makes it easy for creatures to surround a target, and bypass them to attack another ally standing within 5 feet, even if that ally is behind you in a corridor. This is also unlike the previous two editions of D&D, which relied on spaces.

The Reach weapon property reads: "Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." If you read that to be "you get +5 feet of reach whenever you use this weapon" then the non-OA-triggering donut becomes worse when you use a reach weapon, because enemies now have a 10 ft wide reach doughnut to move around in. If you read that to be "you get +5 feet when you attack" but not during other creature's turns, then the rule is unlike how reach worked in every previous edition. Either way, reach weapons are basically pointless unless you take the Polearm Master Feat, because there's no real benefit to using a reach weapon over a ranged or thrown weapon.

Players can move between each attack, Action, and Bonus Action. In most other tabletop games, you move once, you take your action(s) before or after your movement, then you're done. This includes every previous edition of D&D, where you had to get a special Feat or Power or Spell in order to gain extra movement. So moving multiple times during your turn feels unintuitive to some players.

It also means that you can step out from around a corner or cover, take a ranged attack/spell, and then step back, without being targeted. This makes the very common video game (not tabletop roleplaying game) tactic of "kiting" very useful against some enemies.

Each creature can only make one Opportunity Attack each round, and it consumes their valuable Reaction. When combined with all of the above, melee battlefield control is very difficult to impossible beyond low levels.

If players and/or DMs understand the above, then it can lead to all sorts of odd movement patterns and/or tactics if they metagame their movement choices. A Fighter trying to block a door against 20 Goblins could take melee attacks from all 20 Goblins in 1 round (and not 3ish), because each Goblin could move next to the Fighter, take their attack(s), then move away.

It also leads to the minor annoyance of having to count out your movement, take your attack/Action while remembering exactly how much movement you have left, take another step or two of movement, take another attack and/or Bonus Action while remembering how much movement you have left, take another step or two of movement, and so on until you run out of both attacks/Actions and movement. This can be confusing to very young players, and annoying to DMs when they have to control a large number of monsters.

If everyone roleplays what "should" happen in a given situation then it's not a problem, because no one is abusing the rules or trying to squeeze the maximum advantage out of every movement. If you're using the theater of the mind its not a problem, because the DM is fudging movement and position all of the time anyway, so it makes sense to have loose movement/reach/OA rules. But I have found that in my playtests and games, RAW 5E does not work well for miniature combat.

Diarmuid

2014-08-28, 12:57 PM

I guess I'm looking at it with my experienced player's lens on and thinking of my group of similarly experienced players. Yes, those are changes from 3E to this edition with regards to reach, OA's, and movement...but it's not anything monumental or beyond the kinds of changes we got used to moving from 2E to 3E.

What I more see are people not being sure who is where and keeping track of who's within 5' of each other and how far away that group of enemies is and how many would fit it in a very finite AoE.

My group has long referred to me as the tactician of the group, so it may be my specific view on it but there are just too many distances, areas, ranges, etc to keep in mind to be able to simply "wing it". Perhaps a less structured point of view is more easily able to make that work, but I dont see how minis and/or a grid map would necessarily be a detriment to the game as was proposed.

Surrealistik

2014-08-28, 01:02 PM

Had similar experiences with Sleep being far too strong in the lower levels; it really does need a save to avoid its effects, perhaps in exchange for a higher HD cap.

JamesT

2014-08-28, 01:05 PM

Sleep is incredibly effective, very easy to use and in some ways invalidates the use of other low level spells.

I love it. :)

Sartharina

2014-08-28, 01:26 PM

Opportunity Attacks occur when you leave an enemy's threatened reach, not there threatened space, because spaces don't exist in 5E. Thus every creature has a "doughnut" of reach around them that enemies can move safely within, without provoking an Opportunity Attack. This makes it easy for creatures to surround a target, and bypass them to attack another ally standing within 5 feet, even if that ally is behind you in a corridor. This is also unlike the previous two editions of D&D, which relied on spaces. Eh... while I do see a problem with the "Can easily get past/spin around someone", I don't have a problem with free movement with half-circling someone without provoking. Of course, I do have a problem with OAs using Reactions, and would prefer it to be possible to use a Reaction to try to stop someone from moving, but freely OA people who leave reach.

The Reach weapon property reads: "Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." If you read that to be "you get +5 feet of reach whenever you use this weapon" then the non-OA-triggering donut becomes worse when you use a reach weapon, because enemies now have a 10 ft wide reach doughnut to move around in. If you read that to be "you get +5 feet when you attack" but not during other creature's turns, then the rule is unlike how reach worked in every previous edition. Either way, reach weapons are basically pointless unless you take the Polearm Master Feat, because there's no real benefit to using a reach weapon over a ranged or thrown weapon.I thought 4e had Polearms essentially only extend your reach on your turn, since you cannot threaten more than adjacent spaces without

Players can move between each attack, Action, and Bonus Action. In most other tabletop games, you move once, you take your action(s) before or after your movement, then you're done. This includes every previous edition of D&D, where you had to get a special Feat or Power or Spell in order to gain extra movement. So moving multiple times during your turn feels unintuitive to some players.

It also means that you can step out from around a corner or cover, take a ranged attack/spell, and then step back, without being targeted. This makes the very common video game (not tabletop roleplaying game) tactic of "kiting" very useful against some enemies.

Each creature can only make one Opportunity Attack each round, and it consumes their valuable Reaction. When combined with all of the above, melee battlefield control is very difficult to impossible beyond low levels.

If players and/or DMs understand the above, then it can lead to all sorts of odd movement patterns and/or tactics if they metagame their movement choices. A Fighter trying to block a door against 20 Goblins could take melee attacks from all 20 Goblins in 1 round (and not 3ish), because each Goblin could move next to the Fighter, take their attack(s), then move away. Yeah, the Goblin Conga Line is a problem... but honestly, I love the freedom of movement this time around, because it allows for actually-mobile characters.

Merc_Kilsek

2014-08-28, 03:20 PM

Had similar experiences with Sleep being far too strong in the lower levels; it really does need a save to avoid its effects, perhaps in exchange for a higher HD cap.

I wouldn't have a issue with a Wisdom saving throw on it. No real need to change anything else. 5d8 HP base effect is still enough to counter most lower level dangers. I assume HD is HP from your comment.

Person_Man

2014-08-28, 04:00 PM

Yeah, the Goblin Conga Line is a problem... but honestly, I love the freedom of movement this time around, because it allows for actually-mobile characters.

I agree.

The 5E movement rules work great for the theater of the mind, and work ok-ish in tabletop miniature combat if everyone just agrees not to abuse the rules. But a player (or truly sadistic/bad DM who doesn't understand that you shouldn't use the rules to punish players) who abuses the RAW 5E movement rules may run into the problems I outlined above. (Which isn't all theorycrafting on my part, btw. My players quickly picked up on the fact that abush/sniping/kiting is ridiculously effective in some encounters, and did not immediately pick up on the change in reach/Opportunity Attack rules, and once they understood them a few were angry about it, since they were all used to and liked playing reach weapon AoO builds in 3.5/PF).

Surrealistik

2014-08-28, 04:23 PM

I wouldn't have a issue with a Wisdom saving throw on it. No real need to change anything else. 5d8 HP base effect is still enough to counter most lower level dangers. I assume HD is HP from your comment.

Yes.

This is my fix, which makes its effect more consistently useful throughout a character's progression, but still fairly balanced:

Sleep
1st-level enchantment
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 90 feet
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of fine sand, rose petals, or a cricket)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
Effect: This spell sends creatures into a magical slumber. Roll 5d8; the total is how many hit points of creatures
this spell can affect. Creatures within 20 feet of a point you choose within range are affected in ascending order of their current hit points (ignoring unconscious creatures). Starting with the creature that has the lowest current hit points, each creature affected must make a Wisdom saving throw or fall unconscious until the spell ends, the sleeper takes damage, or someone uses an action to shake or slap the sleeper awake. Subtract each creature’s hit points from the total before moving on to the creature with the next lowest hit points. A creature’s hit points must be equal to or less than the remaining total for that creature to be affected.
Undead, constructs, and creatures immune to being charmed aren’t affected by this spell.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, roll an additional 4d8 for each slot level above 1st.

Kurald Galain

2014-08-28, 04:34 PM

The 5E movement rules work great for the theater of the mind, and work ok-ish in tabletop miniature combat if everyone just agrees not to abuse the rules. But a player (or truly sadistic/bad DM who doesn't understand that you shouldn't use the rules to punish players) who abuses the RAW 5E movement rules may run into the problems I outlined above.

So what you're basically saying is that the 5E designers internally use One Particular Playstyle, and if you're also using that style of play then the game works great, but if you play the game some other way you run into all kinds of things that the designers simply never considered.

...well, that's par for the course because 3E and 4E had the exact same issue (if not the exact same One Particular Playstyle). Perhaps WOTC should keep their design staff around for a longer time :smallamused:

Psyren

2014-08-28, 04:34 PM

So was sleep any good? I wasn't clear on that. Called it

Sartharina

2014-08-28, 05:08 PM

I agree.

The 5E movement rules work great for the theater of the mind, and work ok-ish in tabletop miniature combat if everyone just agrees not to abuse the rules. But a player (or truly sadistic/bad DM who doesn't understand that you shouldn't use the rules to punish players) who abuses the RAW 5E movement rules may run into the problems I outlined above. (Which isn't all theorycrafting on my part, btw. My players quickly picked up on the fact that abush/sniping/kiting is ridiculously effective in some encounters, and did not immediately pick up on the change in reach/Opportunity Attack rules, and once they understood them a few were angry about it, since they were all used to and liked playing reach weapon AoO builds in 3.5/PF).

The reach weapon change annoys me as well... I'd have had it so that a Reach Weapon had two 'rings' that provoked AoOs instead of just one - But it would get convoluted to write out, even if it's simple in play.

And my fix for 'sleep' would be to allow a Wisdom saving throw if a hostile creature moves within 10'.

Thrudd

2014-08-28, 05:18 PM

Good for you guys, trying the new edition. It sounds like you all thought outside on the box on several occasions and that's what it's about. It also sounds like that adventure module is horrible, though, a complete railroad. For me, seeing an adult dragon at level 1 = "run away!", especially in the open air where the dragon can fly and strafe you all day. Even your excellent plan to lure the dragon with treasure and blow it up wasn't enough to kill it. The only reason the party or anyone in the keep is still alive is because of plot armor.

The issue with short rests not happening is also a result of the poor design of the module, not the design of the game overall. You're level 1, you're supposed to be fragile with low spell resources. Epic railroad adventures are totally inappropriate. An open-ended wilderness/dungeon crawl module is more appropriate to show off how this edition can work. They should republish "Keep on the Borderlands" updated for the new edition (they used the Caves of Chaos for the first playtest).

archaeo

2014-08-28, 05:19 PM

...My players quickly picked up on the fact that abush/sniping/kiting is ridiculously effective in some encounters, and did not immediately pick up on the change in reach/Opportunity Attack rules, and once they understood them a few were angry about it, since they were all used to and liked playing reach weapon AoO builds in 3.5/PF).

Putting aside the whole "feats are optional" thing, doesn't Polearm Master give back a lot of that reaching stuff? I feel like if you want an "reach weapon AoO build," you start as a Human Melee bro, take Polearm Master at first level, and then Sentinel at fourth level. Am I missing something crucial about the old AoO style?

Muenster Man

2014-08-28, 05:36 PM

Putting aside the whole "feats are optional" thing, doesn't Polearm Master give back a lot of that reaching stuff? I feel like if you want an "reach weapon AoO build," you start as a Human Melee bro, take Polearm Master at first level, and then Sentinel at fourth level. Am I missing something crucial about the old AoO style?

IMO, you really shouldn't need to take the variant human race to be able to fight effectively with reach weapons for the first 3 levels

Surrealistik

2014-08-28, 11:02 PM

And my fix for 'sleep' would be to allow a Wisdom saving throw if a hostile creature moves within 10'.

That's not a very meaningful fix because it still allows you to cripple team monster's action economy and shut down a big part of an encounter to defeat it piecemeal with no chance of failure.

EvilAnagram

2014-08-28, 11:32 PM

IMO, you really shouldn't need to take the variant human race to be able to fight effectively with reach weapons for the first 3 levels

You're perfectly capable of fighting with reach weapons effectively right out of the box as long as you're strong enough and proficient. Not having ten-foot op attacks doesn't negate the benefits of being able to attack at ten feet. Hell, in 4e finding any chance of having reach on your op attacks was next to impossible.

Muenster Man

2014-08-29, 12:02 AM

You're perfectly capable of fighting with reach weapons effectively right out of the box as long as you're strong enough and proficient. Not having ten-foot op attacks doesn't negate the benefits of being able to attack at ten feet. Hell, in 4e finding any chance of having reach on your op attacks was next to impossible.

The context of that comment was in reference to trying to convert 5E's theater of the mind combat to grid-based combat. Reach weapons work perfectly fine in the system it was intended for. But due to wording shenanigans as Person Man pointed out, having a larger reach in actual grid based combat means that opponents have a larger doughnut of free movement to maneuver around without triggering an AoO. Fixing it can be done by taking a feat, but as was pointed out, you either need to pick a specific variant race or wait until 4th level.

It's more a problem of trying to convert the system to grid based combat than anything wrong with system as is.

Diarmuid

2014-08-29, 09:27 AM

Putting aside the whole "feats are optional" thing, doesn't Polearm Master give back a lot of that reaching stuff? I feel like if you want an "reach weapon AoO build," you start as a Human Melee bro, take Polearm Master at first level, and then Sentinel at fourth level. Am I missing something crucial about the old AoO style?

The bigger issue (I think) is that there are currently no ways (that I'm aware of) to get multiple Reactions like you could get multiple AoO's in 3.X.

Yes, you'll get to attack someone who gets close or does other things....but only once per round.

Person_Man

2014-08-29, 10:46 AM

So what you're basically saying is that the 5E designers internally use One Particular Playstyle, and if you're also using that style of play then the game works great, but if you play the game some other way you run into all kinds of things that the designers simply never considered.

...well, that's par for the course because 3E and 4E had the exact same issue (if not the exact same One Particular Playstyle). Perhaps WOTC should keep their design staff around for a longer time :smallamused:

You are absolutely correct.

Putting aside the whole "feats are optional" thing, doesn't Polearm Master give back a lot of that reaching stuff? I feel like if you want an "reach weapon AoO build," you start as a Human Melee bro, take Polearm Master at first level, and then Sentinel at fourth level. Am I missing something crucial about the old AoO style?

Feats are a rare, optional commodity. In 3.X/PF, Feats were handed out like candy and an assumed part of the game. In 3.X/PF, you could pretty much pick up a reach weapon and take Combat Reflexes at level one and be very effective at battlefield control. 3-4 goblins could charge right at you, and you could hit and kill all of them before they came within 5 feet. And then if you spent a couple more Feats getting Improved Trip or whatever, you could lock down most enemies pretty effectively.

In 5E this is not an option unless you're playing a variant human, your DM allows optional Feats, and you're willing to give up some other potent racial ability and ability score increase in order to get it. And even then, it's not as effective as it was in 3.X/PF.

Which makes perfect sense given the overall internal logic of 5E. Its just not what my players are used to. WotC spent a ton of time worrying about what players who like spellcasters like. And they made "simple" options for people who don't want complicated resource management. But other then the Rogue, whom I've grown love, I feel like they didn't provide a lot of great options for people who like a variety of non-magical combat options.

I'm guessing they didn't include them because they would have ended up looking something like the Tome of Battle or 4E, and they didn't want Pathfinder players, whom they are trying to recapture, to be offended by it.

EternalHobbyist

2014-08-29, 05:44 PM

It also sounds like that adventure module is horrible, though, a complete railroad. For me, seeing an adult dragon at level 1 = "run away!", especially in the open air where the dragon can fly and strafe you all day.

This was a big deal to me as well. I went to the FLGS for my first ever Encounters session. We showed up a little late, and my son and I got stuck with pregen characters while the two other PC's finished up their custom sheets.

The first thing that happened was like this - "You are all walking together to this town. As you top the hill, you see the town below, being attacked by a dragon!"

So I look down at my pregen sheet. I'm a Level 1 Halfling Rogue, with 9 hp, a Criminal background, and Neutral alignment. "Ok," I say, "we're out of here!" because leaving was the only sane thing to do at that point from my perspective. But we all got God-Modded into the town, and jumped by 8 kobolds. No problem, right?

TPK. The Paladin goes down first in a hail of slingstones and daggers, then the Wizard, my Rogue, and finally the Bard. We managed to off 6 kobolds before we all died and had to start over. Admittedly, we didn't play very smart, but I'm thinking - "We can't even handle a trundle of kobolds, but we ran into a town besieged by a dragon? Cool."

I don't know how it is in Forgotten Realms; maybe every town has a Dragon Siren (like how every town in Arkansas has a Tornado Siren) and everyone knows the address, color, and temperament of the nearest Dragon, but I'm hoping to run a campaign where they are mythical, fearsome, and not attacking every village over the next hill.

Merc_Kilsek

2014-08-29, 08:15 PM

This was a big deal to me as well. I went to the FLGS for my first ever Encounters session. We showed up a little late, and my son and I got stuck with pregen characters while the two other PC's finished up their custom sheets.

The first thing that happened was like this - "You are all walking together to this town. As you top the hill, you see the town below, being attacked by a dragon!"

So I look down at my pregen sheet. I'm a Level 1 Halfling Rogue, with 9 hp, a Criminal background, and Neutral alignment. "Ok," I say, "we're out of here!" because leaving was the only sane thing to do at that point from my perspective. But we all got God-Modded into the town, and jumped by 8 kobolds. No problem, right?

TPK. The Paladin goes down first in a hail of slingstones and daggers, then the Wizard, my Rogue, and finally the Bard. We managed to off 6 kobolds before we all died and had to start over. Admittedly, we didn't play very smart, but I'm thinking - "We can't even handle a trundle of kobolds, but we ran into a town besieged by a dragon? Cool."

I don't know how it is in Forgotten Realms; maybe every town has a Dragon Siren (like how every town in Arkansas has a Tornado Siren) and everyone knows the address, color, and temperament of the nearest Dragon, but I'm hoping to run a campaign where they are mythical, fearsome, and not attacking every village over the next hill.

Well the dragon sounds more like background flavor then something you should be personally dealing with. As for the kobolds; 8 can be a bit much for a level one party (basically double the number of attacks vs the party). However by your own statement you didn't handle the kobolds as well as you could have.

Surrealistik

2014-08-29, 08:30 PM

TPK. The Paladin goes down first in a hail of slingstones and daggers, then the Wizard, my Rogue, and finally the Bard. We managed to off 6 kobolds before we all died and had to start over. Admittedly, we didn't play very smart, but I'm thinking - "We can't even handle a trundle of kobolds, but we ran into a town besieged by a dragon? Cool."

I don't know how it is in Forgotten Realms; maybe every town has a Dragon Siren (like how every town in Arkansas has a Tornado Siren) and everyone knows the address, color, and temperament of the nearest Dragon, but I'm hoping to run a campaign where they are mythical, fearsome, and not attacking every village over the next hill.

It's because you were clearly intended to abuse that master race utterly broken Sleep spell. :smalltongue:

Beige

2014-08-29, 08:56 PM

Beige

2014-08-29, 08:58 PM

I agree.

The 5E movement rules work great for the theater of the mind, and work ok-ish in tabletop miniature combat if everyone just agrees not to abuse the rules. But a player (or truly sadistic/bad DM who doesn't understand that you shouldn't use the rules to punish players) who abuses the RAW 5E movement rules may run into the problems I outlined above. (Which isn't all theorycrafting on my part, btw. My players quickly picked up on the fact that abush/sniping/kiting is ridiculously effective in some encounters, and did not immediately pick up on the change in reach/Opportunity Attack rules, and once they understood them a few were angry about it, since they were all used to and liked playing reach weapon AoO builds in 3.5/PF).

they've made getting AoOs with a reach weapon a feat now, so its still avaliable, and it makes non-reach melee weapons viable again, which is always nice.

Thrudd

2014-08-30, 04:07 AM

Well the dragon sounds more like background flavor then something you should be personally dealing with. As for the kobolds; 8 can be a bit much for a level one party (basically double the number of attacks vs the party). However by your own statement you didn't handle the kobolds as well as you could have.
I got to read through the actual module.
The adventure actually starts with the adventurers approaching the town, and then noticing that it is being attacked by a dragon. Any sane 1st level character would then say "lets move on to another town" or "go back the way we came...". But the entire episode is about the characters entering the town and engaging in various missions, one of which is driving away the flying adult dragon by dealing 24 dmg or a critical hit to it.
There have been worse adventures for railroading, at least this one gives you a sort of video-game style open environment where you can choose what missions you want to take and in what order, so it isn't necessary that they face the dragon.

Unlike a normal module which you can place into any campaign with almost any sort of characters, this one requires that the characters be designed certain with backgrounds and motivations for this specific story.

Merc_Kilsek

2014-08-30, 12:13 PM

I got to read through the actual module.
The adventure actually starts with the adventurers approaching the town, and then noticing that it is being attacked by a dragon. Any sane 1st level character would then say "lets move on to another town" or "go back the way we came...". But the entire episode is about the characters entering the town and engaging in various missions, one of which is driving away the flying adult dragon by dealing 24 dmg or a critical hit to it.
There have been worse adventures for railroading, at least this one gives you a sort of video-game style open environment where you can choose what missions you want to take and in what order, so it isn't necessary that they face the dragon.

Unlike a normal module which you can place into any campaign with almost any sort of characters, this one requires that the characters be designed certain with backgrounds and motivations for this specific story.

I guess it matters on what type of person your character is. Helping people escape death is well within reason for a adventure to lead their aid to the town. Fighting off some of the attackers (ie kobolds) is doable and, thou dangerous, does fall under the risks typical for adventurer types. Not facing down the dragon is fine to, or at least I wouldn't without the aid others. Rallying the town's people into a small militia could be a reasonable way to drive off the dragon. You'd have to be a little smart about doing that tactic.

I've not read the module myself. It wouldn't surprise me if it is a little railroad-ish but it is one of the first put out for the new edition. So for newer DMs have set paths/opinions can be very helpful. Experienced DM likely make their own adventures and tailor them to the people that play at the table.

Thrudd

2014-08-30, 02:58 PM

I guess it matters on what type of person your character is. Helping people escape death is well within reason for a adventure to lead their aid to the town. Fighting off some of the attackers (ie kobolds) is doable and, thou dangerous, does fall under the risks typical for adventurer types. Not facing down the dragon is fine to, or at least I wouldn't without the aid others. Rallying the town's people into a small militia could be a reasonable way to drive off the dragon. You'd have to be a little smart about doing that tactic.

I've not read the module myself. It wouldn't surprise me if it is a little railroad-ish but it is one of the first put out for the new edition. So for newer DMs have set paths/opinions can be very helpful. Experienced DM likely make their own adventures and tailor them to the people that play at the table.

Yes. The point is, when you see a dragon attacking a place, a first level character normally would be correct in assuming that they will not be of any help in that place and likely will get killed. You would have to have a very strong personal connection to the place or have a very strong motivation to run into that. The module requires that the character be designed with such connections/motivations, otherwise the entire premise of the adventure is a railroad (you're going to that town being attacked, while it's still under attack, whether you like it or not). The characters either need to want to save someone or badly need something from someone in the town, or they are connected to the cult in some way and are motivated to fight it or find out about it.

The first adventure for new DM's should really be something more general and open, not something that establishes that you must limit character choices from the beginning of the game in order to service your story.

MadBear

2014-08-30, 03:59 PM

The first adventure for new DM's should really be something more general and open, not something that establishes that you must limit character choices from the beginning of the game in order to service your story.

I disagree. For a someone just learning how to play and RPG, and a new DM learning how to run an adventure, railroading makes sense at first. I've found that new players given an open sandbox tend to suffer choice paralysis. A nice railroad plot for a beginning adventure path allows players to make meaningful choices without concern that they're leaving the purview of what the DM was trying to get them to do. It also allows players to learn the rules system, players action choices, and practice role-playing before the world opens up.

Also, this whole "I'm a lvl 1 character, no way I'll be able to effect this battle" thing is a bit meta-gamey for my taste. Adventurers don't come with level tags attached to them. There's no reason that an adventurer would necessarily think that they couldn't be of help in driving it away, with the help of an entire town. Sure we as players know that it's stats are beyond them, but that doesn't mean the character should know that.

Thrudd

2014-08-30, 06:02 PM

I disagree. For a someone just learning how to play and RPG, and a new DM learning how to run an adventure, railroading makes sense at first. I've found that new players given an open sandbox tend to suffer choice paralysis. A nice railroad plot for a beginning adventure path allows players to make meaningful choices without concern that they're leaving the purview of what the DM was trying to get them to do. It also allows players to learn the rules system, players action choices, and practice role-playing before the world opens up.

Also, this whole "I'm a lvl 1 character, no way I'll be able to effect this battle" thing is a bit meta-gamey for my taste. Adventurers don't come with level tags attached to them. There's no reason that a adventure would necessarily think that they couldn't be of help in driving it away, with the help of an entire town. Sure we as players know that it's stats are beyond them, but that doesn't mean the character should know that.

Respectfully disagree completely. Railroading is a bad habit to teach new role players. Players shouldn't be taught to expect it or tolerate it, and DM's shouldn't be taught to rely on it. The players should learn that they can and must make decisions, and that their decisions matter for their characters and the world they are in. A good starting module is open, but on a small scale. Example: They enter a new town where they have heard adventures are to be had nearby. They aren't paralyzed by having access to an entire globe all at once, they have a town and a relatively small region to explore. They have a good reason to go to the town and be in that region, something they want can be found there.
The players should not be concerned about what the DM is trying to get them to do (the DM shouldn't be trying to get them to do anything in particular), they should be learning to make decisions based on their characters' motivations and how the game world reacts to their actions.

This adventure actually isn't a terrible railroad once you get into it, since it does let them go where they want within the town and do what they want. The railroad part comes at the very beginning, before the adventure even starts. It starts with requiring some very specific motivations/backgrounds in order for the PC's to want to enter the town and engage in the battle, and the dragon mission/encounter is not appropriate.

A game of D&D always includes assumptions that the PC's have some motivation to seek out adventures, every adventure or module is predicated on that.
The HotDQ adventure requires PC's with fairly specific motivations in order not to be railroaded in the beginning. You need to design characters just for this adventure. It is possible to design modules where this is not the case, and encourage more open world building and exploring. I think those are better to teach people how to play D&D without instilling bad habits and crutches. Every adventure should not require a very specific personal motivation for the characters to want to get involved in it.

The point about the dragon is not that you should encourage meta-gaming, but that an adventure for level 1 characters shouldn't include a mandatory combat encounter with a creature impossible for them to defeat, only to spare them for plot reasons, and reward them XP for it. If a character in-game doesn't know anything about dragons, or doesn't realize that they are not skilled/strong enough to survive an encounter with one, then that character will probably get killed when they attack one. If the point in this module is to teach players how powerful dragons are, it could be as simple as a vignette that they are not a part of: they see the dragon swoop down upon the wall, with twenty guards shooting arrows at it. It doesn't even react to the arrows, it blasts them with lightning and four of them are vaporized at once. Lesson learned. Don't get the dragon's attention, we'll all get killed. In no case should the players be expected or encouraged to go up on the wall and join in with the doomed guards, hoping for some reason that the dragon won't fight to its full ability.

It is ok for PC's to get killed, and for them to encounter creatures too strong for them sometimes. The problem is, the module is teaching them to take stupid risks, by awarding XP for attacking a creature they have no hope of defeating. It is teaching them that if the DM puts something in front of them, they should try to fight it even if it looks like they can't win, because the plot demands it. These are terrible things to teach players.

The module only works if the characters know nothing of dragons, or have such a strong motivation that they are willing to risk certain death to go to the town. A character who knows how powerful and dangerous dragons are, and also has no need to immediately get into that town, would not even bother approaching, they'd wait until the dragon was gone.

hawklost

2014-08-30, 06:13 PM

Thrudd

2014-08-30, 06:42 PM

You seem to be demanding something from an adventure that doesn't make terribly much sense. Adventures are in and of themselves Railroads to a plot point. If a DM is relying on an Adventure to be able to run with players, it is fully expected that the players will be railroaded on the plot. Heck, having an actual plot pretty much is railroading an adventure since you are telling them they must go to a single point.

Adventure modules should not be/do not need to be railroads to plot points. They should be environments in which characters can adventure and explore and pursue their motivations and goals. Having too specific a plot is not good for an adventure, because, as you observe, it requires railroading. There should be a general plot/situation, which the players may be drawn into because it intersects with things they are trying to accomplish (like getting rich, finding magic items, hunting evil monsters, or protecting the lands of free people). You should never have to tell the players they need to go to a specific point. They can find out that a person or place has something they are interested in, and they will choose to go there or they won't. The module should have options for almost any decision the players make. A good module has multiple ways to get to the same point, and multiple points without requiring that you reach them in any specific order.

Yes, every adventure requires that the characters be motivated to participate in it. Nothing happens if the characters have no interest in going to the place where the adventure takes place. Once they are interested and motivated, however, there should be no need for railroading of any sort.

captpike

2014-08-30, 06:48 PM

I agree.

The 5E movement rules work great for the theater of the mind, and work ok-ish in tabletop miniature combat if everyone just agrees not to abuse the rules. But a player (or truly sadistic/bad DM who doesn't understand that you shouldn't use the rules to punish players) who abuses the RAW 5E movement rules may run into the problems I outlined above. (Which isn't all theorycrafting on my part, btw. My players quickly picked up on the fact that abush/sniping/kiting is ridiculously effective in some encounters, and did not immediately pick up on the change in reach/Opportunity Attack rules, and once they understood them a few were angry about it, since they were all used to and liked playing reach weapon AoO builds in 3.5/PF).

its not abuse if your using the rules as intended. it means the rules are broken.

Shadow

2014-08-30, 07:22 PM

You are an heoric adventurer.
You are with your fellow adventurers.
You see a town being attacked by a dragon.
You help the town, because that's what heroes do. Period.
To claim that you'd run away is cowardly and meta-gamey. The cowardly aspect many people will gloss over and claim that "this is what my character would do" because they are not only cowards in the game but also in their gaming.
The meta-gaming aspect should be unacceptable.

If you disagree, then please explain to me exactly when it would be acceptable for you to join in the defense of the town. In five levels? In ten? The heroes don't have levels. They are simply people. People thrown into an impossible situation, but people none the less. You might claim that your wizard doesn't know enough magics to be of any help.... but when would he think that he knows enough? When would it be acceptable for a wizard to attack a dragon on a rampage?
The answer is never, because it is always a suicide mission. He will never stop searching for more arcane knowledge. He will never be ready for that fight.
If he is ever ready for that fight, then he's meta-gaming.

So be the heroes that you were supposed to be playing and go help that town. Because that's what heroes do.
Side note: I despise that people can play evil characters, because it leads to cowardice at the table for the sake of "what [your] character would do."
This is an heroic game. Why would you want to play anything other than the hero? Even an unassuming and inadvertant hero is still a hero. Find a way to be one as well.
Don't think of it as a railroad. It's what is expected of you as a player.

captpike

2014-08-30, 07:55 PM

Shadow

2014-08-30, 08:10 PM

how about "when it is possbile I could win, and will not just be throwing my life away for nothing whatsoever"

not every PC's goal is "help everyone" its ok to have a PC who is in it for the money and could not care less if the village dies.

its not metagaming to do anything but run at every fight you see.

And if you ever think that you might be able to kill a freaking dragon, then you are meta-gaming.
This isn't some random monster out of nightmares while you're alone in the woods. If that happens, feel free to run. In this scenario, the dragon is being attacked by dozens of armed and trained guards, and you have your fellows at your side. If ever there was a time for you to engage a dragon in your entire life, now is that time.
Go be the heroes that you are meant to be and help the town.

I've already addressed your second point about "that's what my character would do."

captpike

2014-08-30, 08:19 PM

And if you ever think that you might be able to kill a freaking dragon, then you are meta-gaming.
This isn't some random monster out of nightmares while you're alone in the woods. If that happens, feel free to run. In this scenario, the dragon is being attacked by dozens of armed and trained guards, and you have your fellows at your side. If ever there was a time for you to engage a dragon in your entire life, now is that time.
Go be the heroes that you are meant to be and help the town.

I've already addressed your second point about "that's what my character would do."

first how powerful dragons are is setting-dependent. in some they are all but gods, in some the smaller ones are very weak.

why would you throw your life away for nothing? how does that help anyone? if I was playing a good character and know with 100% certainty I could not even slow the dragon down I would not fight the dragon, no reason to do so. I might help people get away but why fight it when you cant even slow it down? who is helped?

so what is not playing good characters not playing D&D correctly? not only good, but stupid good who die for nothing? your acting like every non-evil character would rush to their deaths. you might want to look up what neutral means.

Shadow

2014-08-30, 08:25 PM

first how powerful dragons are is setting-dependent. in some they are all but gods, in some the smaller ones are very weak.
meta-gaming

why would you throw your life away for nothing? how does that help anyone? if I was playing a good character and know with 100% certainty I could not even slow the dragon down I would not fight the dragon, no reason to do so. I might help people get away but why fight it when you cant even slow it down? who is helped?
If that's the case then stop adventuring. Go home. Become a farmer. Because in your mind, you should never be ready for that fight, as I already explained.

so what is not playing good characters not playing D&D correctly? not only good, but stupid good who die for nothing? your acting like every non-evil character would rush to their deaths. you might want to look up what neutral means.
"its ok to have a PC who is in it for the money and could not care less if the village dies."
That isn't a neutral attitude. That's the very definition of neutral evil from earlier editions, almost verbatim. And even neutral characters would want to preserve the balance. The balance is not preserved by marauding dragons razing towns. You might not have a view of the defining difference between good and evil, but you certainly have a view of right and wrong.
And people not knowing that difference is the exact reason why I despise evil characters and why neutral characters are usually just evil characters in symantic disguise. It's a reason for players to be selfish d-bags. But you're not playing solo; this is an heroic team game, so don't be a selfish d-bag. (not you personally, but the character in the hypothetical situation)

captpike

2014-08-30, 08:53 PM

meta-gaming

If that's the case then stop adventuring. Go home. Become a farmer. Because in your mind, you should never be ready for that fight, as I already explained.

"its ok to have a PC who is in it for the money and could not care less if the village dies."
That isn't a neutral attitude. That's the very definition of neutral evil from earlier editions, almost verbatim. And even neutral characters would want to preserve the balance. The balance is not preserved by marauding dragons razing towns. You might not have a view of the defining difference between good and evil, but you certainly have a view of right and wrong.
And people not knowing that difference is the exact reason why I despise evil characters and why neutral characters are usually just evil characters in symantic disguise. It's a reason for players to be selfish d-bags. But you're not playing solo; this is an heroic team game, so don't be a selfish d-bag. (not you personally, but the character in the hypothetical situation)

what? my character would know how powerful dragons are if he has been around. as an adventure his life might depend on how well he can guesstimate the abilities of targets he faces.

there is this thing called progression, where a character will be better at what they do. if my character has killed 5 dragons before he might be confident of his chances, if he has only faces orc's and then only 1 at a time then he might realistically know that he has zero odds of surviving.

how is the world a better place when your character dies? he saved no one, helped no one. he may have given away decades of good acts and gotten nothing in return.

neutral means not good and not evil, right and wrong would not matter to such a person if helping someone would get him closer to his goals he would do that. if hurt them would get him closer he would do that. why would he risk his life for no return?

neutral does not always mean balance, it often means amoral. as in does not care about right or wrong.

your game may be heroic, mine may not be. do not assume everyone plays just like you do.

Arzanyos

2014-08-30, 09:14 PM

Neutral isn't the "amoral as in will do whatever to accomplish his goals alignment." If you don't care whether what you do is right or wrong, you are probably either neutral evil or not doing much. Neutral is the "Meh" alignment.

Shadow

2014-08-30, 09:15 PM

I don't assume that everyone plays like I do.
But the DM assumes that everyone will play the adventure. As I said, it's exactly what is expected of you as a player.... that you, ya know, actually play the adventure. You need to devise a reason for your character to do it. If money is all you're after and you don't care about the town one bit (neutral evil, not neutral) then tell the table that someone in that town owes you money. Dead men don't pay. Bam. You have a reason. The DM's responsibility is to create heroic scenarios. The player's responsibility is to place themselves into said scenario, whether their reasons are heroic or not.
And if you're going to meta-game the dragon's abilities vs your own, you may as well meta-game the fact that the DM wouldn't put it there just to TPK the party at first level.

Neutral isn't the "amoral as in will do whatever to accomplish his goals alignment." If you don't care whether what you do is right or wrong, you are probably either neutral evil or not doing much. Neutral is the "Meh" alignment.
Exactly. Like I said, neutral is often just an evil character in semantic disguise, because players want to play evil but don't want to call it evil.

Arzanyos

2014-08-30, 09:29 PM

You know, I think an easy way to solve the whole dragon suspension of disbelief problem is to just describe how the defenders attacks are being effective. The dragon just sweeping unchecked through the city until you, the heroes plunk it with a couple of arrows and it flies away sounds unbelievable. But imagine this;

The dragon has been assaulting the walls for a while now. The defenders are tough, but he's got them on the ropes. A few more passes, and they should be dead. But still, they keep peppering him with arrows, and those little wounds are starting to make him uncomfortable. Then, all of a sudden, these new people arrive. Whatever, they're probably just terrified townspeople. But then they hold their ground, and start firing as well. Now a whole new set of variables has been introduced. Painful variables. Now, you're not too sure whether this is worth your time. You'll probably have to get your scales repolished as it is, and now there are more defenders. Screw it, you ain't getting paid enough for this job. And off you fly.

Thrudd

2014-08-30, 10:32 PM

You are an heoric adventurer.
You are with your fellow adventurers.
You see a town being attacked by a dragon.
You help the town, because that's what heroes do. Period.

You all die instantly in the dragon's breath attack.
I guess you get props for being heroic, though.

A character would feel more prepared to face a dragon when they have done some actual adventuring, have an idea what dragons are capable of, and have some strategy for avoiding its attacks. These are people who have never been on a single adventure in their lives.

I agree, I don't want meta-gaming. But good characters does not mean stupid characters. If a player asked me "what does my character know about dragons?", I might tell them "you know they are extremely deadly, they have been known to lay waste to entire armies of men, and the only people you've ever heard of defeating them are heroes of incredible power." With this knowledge, would a new adventurer run to the wall and shoot arrows at one? Level one characters are not heroes of incredible power, and they know it.

I don't think it is good to throw level 1 characters into an impossible/suicide mission scenario for their first ever adventure. The first thing they ever do is look at an impossible to beat creature, and say "whelp, we need to be heroic and try to save the town, even though we face certain death if that monster so much as looks at us..." and then just pray the DM is nice and the plot will save them. This is a bad precedent and a bad introduction to the game.

Expecting characters to go face a dragon at level one because they don't know any better and want to be heroes is fine, you should also be expecting one or all of those characters to die. Then the players roll up more characters, who this time happen to be a little more world-wise and know they aren't strong enough to attack a dragon head-on.

Not meta-gaming, it is perfectly reasonable in-world knowledge for a character to have.

An encounter that involves characters hiding, making attacks from places inaccessible to the dragon, negotiating with or trying to trick it, these things might make more sense, and would still be extremely dangerous with potential for character death. Standing on a wall getting strafed by a dragon is a stupid idea, even for higher level characters.

captpike

2014-08-30, 10:53 PM

I don't assume that everyone plays like I do.
But the DM assumes that everyone will play the adventure. As I said, it's exactly what is expected of you as a player.... that you, ya know, actually play the adventure. You need to devise a reason for your character to do it. If money is all you're after and you don't care about the town one bit (neutral evil, not neutral) then tell the table that someone in that town owes you money. Dead men don't pay. Bam. You have a reason. The DM's responsibility is to create heroic scenarios. The player's responsibility is to place themselves into said scenario, whether their reasons are heroic or not.
And if you're going to meta-game the dragon's abilities vs your own, you may as well meta-game the fact that the DM wouldn't put it there just to TPK the party at first level.

Exactly. Like I said, neutral is often just an evil character in semantic disguise, because players want to play evil but don't want to call it evil.

why do you insist that all D&D must be heroic? evil games are just as much D&D as good ones.

a reason to take a calculated risk yes, not a reason to kill yourself.

how does being neutral require you to risk your life for people you don't know? how could that be called anything but good? your NEUTRAL as in neither good, nor evil. when decided what to do you don't allow morality to enter into it. you can play differently as a neutral character but that is a perfectly good way to play one.

also a DM who tries to force his players to attack something they have no reason to expect to be able to win against is a very bad DM.

Shadow

2014-08-30, 11:33 PM

Good. You read some of what I wrote. Now bold the next sentence as well. And then continue reading after that.
You, too, Thrudd.

And I continue to state that the game is heroic.... because the game is heroic. You may not have to be, but the game already is. Unless you can name one single evil themed pregenerated module for me under the trademarked name of Dungeons & Dragons. Go ahead and try. I'll wait.

Theodoxus

2014-08-30, 11:44 PM

Why does it matter?

For that matter, what's wrong with meta-gaming? I do it all the time in real life - kinda useful for navigating life's little foibles. Not to mention knowing when to rev the engine as the light is about to turn green.

Y'all act like it's some sacred cow. It's not.

Shadow, you really need to get off your high horse. Stop demanding people play a game in one strict manner. If the game wasn't meant to allow neutral (evil disguised?) or actual evil - then it wouldn't have those alignments in the player's handbook. You'd get a choice of Lawful, Good or Chaotic - and that'd be it... all of them aligned towards good.

Neutral and Evil would be described in the first block section of whatever monster in the module you encounter first, with an expanded section in the DMG. But that's not how the game is written, nor played.

It's just fluff anyway - especially with the mechanics of alignment being taken out of every aspect of the game. My NE fighter is just as noble and caring for the things he cares about as your LG paladin. He just has a much less heroic outlook on those he doesn't care about. It's fun. That's the point of a game.

Shadow

2014-08-31, 12:18 AM

It's fun. That's the point of a game.

Assuming you can get the players to actually play it.... which is why it's their responsibility to find a reason to place themselves into the scenario that the DM has designed (or paid for).

MadBear

2014-08-31, 12:20 AM

Gotta say I agree with shadow.

It's a collaborative game. Players should trust that there DM isn't pulling rocks fall you die.

As for horses that are of a higher state, he's not the only one stating that if a game is run in a certain way it's badwrongfun. That has been done on both sides.

Sartharina

2014-08-31, 12:47 AM

Respectfully disagree completely. Railroading is a bad habit to teach new role players. Players shouldn't be taught to expect it or tolerate it, and DM's shouldn't be taught to rely on it. The players should learn that they can and must make decisions, and that their decisions matter for their characters and the world they are in. A good starting module is open, but on a small scale. Example: They enter a new town where they have heard adventures are to be had nearby. They aren't paralyzed by having access to an entire globe all at once, they have a town and a relatively small region to explore. They have a good reason to go to the town and be in that region, something they want can be found there.
The players should not be concerned about what the DM is trying to get them to do (the DM shouldn't be trying to get them to do anything in particular), they should be learning to make decisions based on their characters' motivations and how the game world reacts to their actions.Agreed here. There's a reason Keep on the Borderlands is one of the best modules of all time, and, honestly, I rank the playtest "Reclaiming Blingdenstone" adventure a great one as well. There's no 'railroading' in the latter beyond the 'you've all agreed to come help reclaim this Deep Gnome city" - which is the premise, and happens before players have 'control' of their characters. I wonder if Hordes of the Dragon Queen would be significantly better if, instead of starting with "You see a Dragon attacking a distant town", you have "You're in Adventure Town, when suddenly a dragon attacks!"

The point about the dragon is not that you should encourage meta-gaming, but that an adventure for level 1 characters shouldn't include a mandatory combat encounter with a creature impossible for them to defeat, only to spare them for plot reasons, and reward them XP for it. If a character in-game doesn't know anything about dragons, or doesn't realize that they are not skilled/strong enough to survive an encounter with one, then that character will probably get killed when they attack one. If the point in this module is to teach players how powerful dragons are, it could be as simple as a vignette that they are not a part of: they see the dragon swoop down upon the wall, with twenty guards shooting arrows at it. It doesn't even react to the arrows, it blasts them with lightning and four of them are vaporized at once. Lesson learned. Don't get the dragon's attention, we'll all get killed. In no case should the players be expected or encouraged to go up on the wall and join in with the doomed guards, hoping for some reason that the dragon won't fight to its full ability.First off - Dragon Roasting NPCs does nothing. For all we know, that's just flavor text, and the dragon actually only does 2d6 damage with its breath weapon against PCs, with Dexterity for half, and has an AC of 15 or 17. Secondly - it might be trying to showcase Bouded Accuracy - even a low-level character can contribute and fight against a high-level foe if they fight right or get lucky. (Feature, not a bug)

It is ok for PC's to get killed, and for them to encounter creatures too strong for them sometimes. The problem is, the module is teaching them to take stupid risks, by awarding XP for attacking a creature they have no hope of defeating. It is teaching them that if the DM puts something in front of them, they should try to fight it even if it looks like they can't win, because the plot demands it. These are terrible things to teach players.

The module only works if the characters know nothing of dragons, or have such a strong motivation that they are willing to risk certain death to go to the town. A character who knows how powerful and dangerous dragons are, and also has no need to immediately get into that town, would not even bother approaching, they'd wait until the dragon was gone.On the contrary, I think it's designed to show that a band of player characters can hurt and even kill a high-level foe if they approach the problem correctly. People familiar with previous editions will see the Dragon and think "Oh no, there's nothing we can do about it! We're not Tall Enough To Ride This Encounter, because our low-level characters can't overcome its damage reduction or even hit its AC!" The forced encounter with the dragon tells them "Yes, you CAN contribute to fights against a dragon!", encouraging players of low-level characters to, instead of give up and go home when confronted with a high-level threat, find a way to tear it down while maximizing danger to the foe and minimizing risk to themselves. The players can become Tucker's Kobolds.

How powerful is a dragon? "We've all run the simulations. They're tough, but they ain't invincible!"

Thrudd

2014-08-31, 12:52 AM

The DM's responsibility is not to create heroic scenarios. It is to create a fantasy world full of adventures. Those things do not necessarily equate. Adventures often include heroic exploits, yes. They don't all have to be epic heroic scenarios. In fact, when they are, it kind of cheapens the experience, doesn't it?

The best kind of module has potential interest for characters of any background and alignment, so it could be plugged into any game. This isn't always accomplished, but it isn't impossible. There aren't many evil-themed adventures, but they aren't all specifically good-themed, either. You can desire to find treasure and magic items regardless of your alignment. You could be recruited to perform a quest or solve a mystery regardless of your alignment. The alignment may alter how you go about completing that task, and what your overall goals are, and whether or not you betray or backstab anyone that you promised to help. But it shouldn't necessarily change the content of the adventure, in fact it should account for the full range of potential alignments available to D&D characters and their likely behavior.

Shadow

2014-08-31, 01:06 AM

Sartharina

2014-08-31, 01:12 AM

... dang, all I can think of are Pathfinder modules.

That said, "Heroic" and "Good" aren't necessarily synonymous. Heroic is more synonymous with "Great".

Voldemort was a "Hero". As was Jack of Blades.

Dracothius

2014-08-31, 02:06 AM

Lawful Neutral: characters act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. You might be able to say you wouldn't help, but I doubt it.

Neutral: Those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions(definition of amoral) and don't take sides. Absolutely capable of saying you wouldn't take a side in the battle and let nature run its course. Survival of the fittest is a core rule regarding nature.

Chaotic Neutral: Creatures follow their whims, holding personal freedom above all else. Again, Absolutely capable of saying he would not help. It's not in his best interest, why do it?

If your party was all neutral it's very easy to say you would not help the town. As the DM you would have to say that your characters know the town would give you a lot of gold(there's a lot of loot in there maybe) or you had some important reason to help. Strictly from an alignment standpoint, you wouldn't feel the need to help. I agree as a good aligned character, you would probably feel that you need to help for as long as you can. I also wouldn't call not wanting to attack a really big scary thing meta gaming. Cowardly, maybe.

Elana

2014-08-31, 02:11 AM

Shadow

2014-08-31, 02:24 AM

How about reverse dungeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Dungeon)?
Reverse Dungeon doesn't fit the criteria I asked for. It isn't evil themed.
The pregenerated characters, no matter which level you play at, are simply creatures defending thier homes. That does not an evil theme create. I could argue that it is still decidedly heroic, regardless of the alignments of the pregens, further reinforcing my point. The only example so far is of evil aligned pregens acting in what could be described as an heroic manner, because D&D is an heroic game.
Heck, the neutral (and even good) aligned players that simply walk away from the dragon are acting more evil than some mobs defending their homes.
Try again.

Envyus

2014-08-31, 02:29 AM

what? my character would know how powerful dragons are if he has been around. as an adventure his life might depend on how well he can guesstimate the abilities of targets he faces.

How you are level 1 you are a noob. This is the first thing you would have done in the game.

Sartharina

2014-08-31, 03:15 AM

I'm curious why the module doesn't just start the players in the town instead of having them see the carnage from a distance. Then, at least there's an obstacle to keep them from getting out of dodge (Others can harass them into helping them escape as well)

Durazno

2014-08-31, 03:32 AM

I'm frustrated that they had to frame the other defenders as being ineffective. Would it have been so hard to say "The PCs are just part of a larger effort to repel the dragon, but you don't have to track the damage that the other archers are dealing"? It ought to be clear that the party isn't standing up to a dragon, but rather joining an army that's standing up to a dragon. That's a hugely important distinction, I'd think, and the way the scenario is framed it sounds like it's just running because three or four of the warriors down there managed to peg him with a few arrows.

Thrudd

2014-08-31, 05:16 AM

Agreed here. There's a reason Keep on the Borderlands is one of the best modules of all time, and, honestly, I rank the playtest "Reclaiming Blingdenstone" adventure a great one as well. There's no 'railroading' in the latter beyond the 'you've all agreed to come help reclaim this Deep Gnome city" - which is the premise, and happens before players have 'control' of their characters. I wonder if Hordes of the Dragon Queen would be significantly better if, instead of starting with "You see a Dragon attacking a distant town", you have "You're in Adventure Town, when suddenly a dragon attacks!"

First off - Dragon Roasting NPCs does nothing. For all we know, that's just flavor text, and the dragon actually only does 2d6 damage with its breath weapon against PCs, with Dexterity for half, and has an AC of 15 or 17. Secondly - it might be trying to showcase Bouded Accuracy - even a low-level character can contribute and fight against a high-level foe if they fight right or get lucky. (Feature, not a bug)

On the contrary, I think it's designed to show that a band of player characters can hurt and even kill a high-level foe if they approach the problem correctly. People familiar with previous editions will see the Dragon and think "Oh no, there's nothing we can do about it! We're not Tall Enough To Ride This Encounter, because our low-level characters can't overcome its damage reduction or even hit its AC!" The forced encounter with the dragon tells them "Yes, you CAN contribute to fights against a dragon!", encouraging players of low-level characters to, instead of give up and go home when confronted with a high-level threat, find a way to tear it down while maximizing danger to the foe and minimizing risk to themselves. The players can become Tucker's Kobolds.

How powerful is a dragon? "We've all run the simulations. They're tough, but they ain't invincible!"

Actually, this dragon's breath weapon is 12d6, not 2. The save DC is 19. And AC 19. Over 200 HP. It will almost definitely kill a lvl 1 character instantly, even on a successful save. The adventure says it flies away after taking around a tenth of it's HP. If it actually wanted to fight, it would easily slaughter everyone without taking even 50% damage. The module is giving the characters false belief in their ability to have an impact. This edition's adult dragons may not be as bad as previous editions, but they are nowhere near doable for low levels. They are not tall enough to ride, it is a fact. If the module wanted to encourage them to find alternate ways to deal with powerful threats, there would need to be other factors in play: some type of terrain they could use to their advantage, some items they could use, something. The OP's DM had the right idea in adding oil barrels that could be burned. Still, standing on a wall with a dragon strafing you with it's breath weapon will/should lead to somebody dying. Not a good plan.

I do think the module would be better if the dragon didn't show up until after the players had reached the town, or the keep even. Overall, it isn't a terrible module. It isn't exactly a railroad, the only thing I don't like (besides the dragon attack mission) is that it requires fairly specific background elements for all the characters to get involved in it. The players are not required to participate in all the missions, they can choose whatever they want. They don't ever need to go up on the wall and fight the dragon. If I were running it, I would not hold back if they chose to go on the wall. They can watch the town guards shooting arrows and getting vaporized; if they still choose to join in and shoot at it, they get vaporized, too. Come up with a better plan than attacking in the open waiting to get blasted, or just avoid getting it's attention until it leaves.

Thrudd

2014-08-31, 06:45 AM

That's all fine and dandy as your opinion, but it isn't what the game was designed for.
I'm still waiting for you to name one single evil themed pregenerated module under the trademarked name of Dungeons & Dragons.

What wasn't the game designed for? Playing as neutral or evil characters? It was actually designed for players to seek treasure and fight monsters in dungeons. Their motives for doing that might be good, neutral, or evil. Yes, good characters are most common and some say easiest to plan for.

Go ahead and join in the attack on the dragon at the wall. According to the abilities of the dragon and level 1 characters, at least one character is almost guaranteed to be killed if the dragon takes notice of them. Thank you, heroic level 1 apprentice that nobody has ever heard of. You'll be buried in the mass grave with the rest of the unidentifiable remains of the town's defenders. But you stayed true to the principles of your good alignment, that demands you always run into a fight against evil monsters.

Being Good doesn't mean being stupid and attempting things that are clearly suicidal/impossible. You can't be a hero if you don't live long enough to accomplish anything.

Vhaluus

2014-08-31, 06:57 AM

That's all fine and dandy as your opinion, but it isn't what the game was designed for.
I'm still waiting for you to name one single evil themed pregenerated module under the trademarked name of Dungeons & Dragons.

This is ridiculous.

If it wasn't designed to allow for evil characters doing evil things you wouldn't be able to take evil alignments at character generation.

Furthermore the design of the game and the design of pregenerated modules, while linked, are separate.

Theodoxus

2014-08-31, 10:27 AM

That's all fine and dandy as your opinion, but it isn't what the game was designed for.
I'm still waiting for you to name one single evil themed pregenerated module under the trademarked name of Dungeons & Dragons.

And I'm still waiting for you to admit that not all Dungeons & Dragons games use pregenerated modules, and not all Dungeons & Dragons games are heroic in nature. But we both know we'll be sitting forever for either of us to get satisfaction in that regard.

Sartharina

2014-08-31, 11:37 AM

Actually, this dragon's breath weapon is 12d6, not 2. The save DC is 19. And AC 19. Over 200 HP.But they don't know that, and wouldn't know that if the dragon just roasts NPCs.

And heroism has nothing to do with alignment.

hawklost

2014-08-31, 12:24 PM

This is ridiculous.

If it wasn't designed to allow for evil characters doing evil things you wouldn't be able to take evil alignments at character generation.

Furthermore the design of the game and the design of pregenerated modules, while linked, are separate.

DnD was designed for both Good and Evil characters. The Design of a pre-generated adventure though was for characters who would go out of their way to help those in need (either for Gold or for the sake of helping).

Anyone can play a DnD game that the DM makes up that has evil characters in it without problems.

If you want to use a pre-gen adventure though, you are usually expected to play someone who at least Acts more selflessly and tries to save people even if their life might be in danger.

And I'm still waiting for you to admit that not all Dungeons & Dragons games use pregenerated modules, and not all Dungeons & Dragons games are heroic in nature. But we both know we'll be sitting forever for either of us to get satisfaction in that regard.

Why? This whole thread has devolved into people saying "Characters wouldn't attack the dragon in this module because.... (insert reason here)". Its all about a specific module and has nothing to do with DnD at large. Why should someone on this thread put disclaimers on their posts saying that when playing a none pre-generated campaign that people can play evil without a problem.

EDIT: Heck, the logic that people use of "Well, my character wouldn't go help those people becasue it is not worth it" could be used in every single pre-generated campaign out there and it would break every single one of them. By that logic, every Pre-gen adventure must be railroading the players.

Shadow

2014-08-31, 01:36 PM

If you want to use a pre-gen adventure though, you are usually expected to play someone who at least Acts more selflessly and tries to save people even if their life might be in danger.

EDIT: Heck, the logic that people use of "Well, my character wouldn't go help those people becasue it is not worth it" could be used in every single pre-generated campaign out there and it would break every single one of them. By that logic, every Pre-gen adventure must be railroading the players.

Exactly my point. So don't think of it in terms of railroading. Think of it in terms of what is expected of you at the table.
The DM is expected to run the game, either one that they designed or one that they purchased.
The player is expected to design a reason that he would involve himself.
Your reasons don't need to be heroic (thats just the easiest to explain), but they need to exist.
If the players don't do this, then why the heck are they playing at all?

MustacheFart

2014-08-31, 03:17 PM

I've read very little stated in this thread but I figured I would say what I am about to say here before making another thread.

I played in the first chapter or part or whatever you want to call it, of Hoard of the Dragon Queen yesterday. I experienced what most have been complaining about...the lack of a long rest...thus running on empty a lot of the game. We had a pretty conservative/resourceful party and yet we still were running on empty before it was close to over.

Now, I was playing a Half Orc barbarian with pretty much as high of HP as you can get nonmagically at level 1. I was also rocking the highest AC in the party or 20. I rolled exceptionally well on my initial stats.

I got to face off against the Champion at 4 am with no rages. My character should've died due to getting back up at 1 hp (thanks of half orc ability) and the champion then responding with two attacks--one of which did 24 damage. However, our party didn't quite understand the death by massive damage rule so we thought it was double your max HP in the negatives before you died (I had a max HP of 16 so the DM's thought was dead at -32).

Anyway, here are my complaints, take them as you will:

1) The champion reportedly has over 50 hp.
2) The champion has multiattack
3) The champion has action surge (after I got up at 1 hp the dm attacked twice, missed, and then used Action Surge to attack again).
4) The encounter is designed to beat whoever you send out. Don't try to deny it. The chance of success is marginal at best. It's designed to beat you. I can only assume that they either intended for one of two results: either he kills who you sent out and that person got to sacrifice themselves for the "greater good"! YAY YAY! I was the sacrificing hero at level 1. After all the time I spent building a character. Or, they intend for him to knock you unconscious and you to be healed, only to swear ungodly vengeance should you ever meet him again.

AND... the last one:

5) The champion challenges the party to a FAIR DUEL with the toughest party member yet the party received no long rest. How is that fair? So, this champion has an action surge that he never expended while he was out leading the troops (after all he was a leader of the army). He gets to use all of his doodads but won't let you recover so you can use yours? That's the definition of unfair. That's up there with slipping someone poison or stabbing them in the gut before putting on their armor so you can fight them "fair".

I thought the encounter was poorly written and stupid. This is the first module released and rather than engage potentially new players with positive events they opt for the overwhelmingly negative. They're banking on knocking you down to piss you off into playing more. Basically, negative re-enforcement.

That champion encounter could've been written much better with one little tweak: make it an actual fair fight. Scale the champ down to a realistic level. Then if the player kills him (which the odds should be in the players favor rather than horribly not) the next in line steps up, acts shocked, KILLS THE WOMAN (yes violates the agreement), and then retreats. Hell, that would achieve the same exact results. The party is pissed off, they want to go after them, and the party's "champion" isn't immediately demoralized at level 1 and in fact would still feel pretty good about his fight.

I will probably get written off as a "sore loser". It honestly is so not that. I rolled horribly against the champion (missed two out of three attacks) and the champion rolled very very well. I can't get upset about that. That **** happens. Though the encounter made me think about it as a whole and thus I am ranting about its design. It's just that. Call it what you will but I wasn't impressed.

In hindsight, I have a question: 1) The champ comes out at 4 am. I am assuming this is regardless of whether you save the mill or not? Is that so?

If so, what is to keep a party from literally, busting ass to get inside the keep for the very beginning. Then going up to the top, plinking a little bit of damage into the dragon, and then...saying "F You townspeople...we're going to bed" At that point, you skipped their stupid mill, their tunnel, etc. At that point as long as you're in bed by 8 pm. The town can burn while you recharge for the champion fight.

Honestly, my impression is a bit like "no good dead goes unpunished." Thinking back, if you had a party of pr*cks, d*cks, and d-bags I believe you could get farther.

Think about it? You get to town, you clear out the warehouse. Oh secret loot stash! Yoink! We'll take that. Oh no! A family needing help. Eh! The numbers aren't two overwhelming for the family. Sit back and let the family weaken them till they're dead. Then play clean up. You go to the mill, "Hmm obvious trap!". You kill the outside guys and then do what you're supposed to prevent: burn down the mill. There goes the bad guys inside. The townspeople can build another one if they're alive later.

Get back to keep, shoot the dragon to scare it off, and chill out. My champion shows up, demands his duel. Then either send out the biggest toughest former commoner in your party. He sends the kids forward leaving just the woman. Duel starts and wizard and other party members shoot the kobolds holding woman. She can then move her ass forward if she wants to live. If she gets killed, meh we tried and the kids are fine. Every one lights up on the champ for a round and then shuts the keep doors.

I'm done ranting LOL.

Thrudd

2014-08-31, 05:06 PM

Thrudd

2014-08-31, 05:30 PM

But they don't know that, and wouldn't know that if the dragon just roasts NPCs.

And heroism has nothing to do with alignment.

Actually I was wrong, too. It's 12d10 lightning breath, not d6's. Even better.

Yes, the characters may not know how much damage the dragon can really do, but why would seeing NPCs getting roasted not tip them off? Seeing guards get roasted a handful at a time should tell the PCs something about what they're up against. If they still assume they are significantly more powerful than everyone else they see, they will be disavowed of that notion as soon as they try to stand up to the dragon. The point is, this edition and this module are not doing what you seem to think it is. There is bounded accuracy, yes, but level 1 characters are still far outclassed by a dragon and cannot hope to survive a blast of its breath. Characters in this module are at serious risk of sudden death if they make a wrong move or get unlucky or misjudge their abilities.

If the module is run with common sense and without kiddie gloves or fudging, I think it is more likely to teach players that their characters are not immortal, they can't just run into any situation because it is the heroic thing to do and expect to live. You are vulnerable and can die, even to kobolds. Just because you see a dragon doesn't mean you can survive an encounter with one. Fighting a powerful looking seven foot tall monster one-on-one without any rest will probably get you killed, no matter how noble a gesture it is. If you see a town being attacked by a dragon and an army, you need a better approach than "run in there and hope we're strong enough to fight everything."

captpike

2014-08-31, 05:52 PM

How you are level 1 you are a noob. This is the first thing you would have done in the game.

level 1 does not mean you were born yesterday and have no knowledge of anything. if I was a wizard and spent the last 10 years studying creatures and such then yes I would know how hard a dragon would be to fight.

hawklost

2014-08-31, 06:27 PM

......

If the module is run with common sense and without kiddie gloves or fudging, I think it is more likely to teach players that their characters are not immortal, they can't just run into any situation because it is the heroic thing to do and expect to live. You are vulnerable and can die, even to kobolds. Just because you see a dragon doesn't mean you can survive an encounter with one. Fighting a powerful looking seven foot tall monster one-on-one without any rest will probably get you killed, no matter how noble a gesture it is. If you see a town being attacked by a dragon and an army, you need a better approach than "run in there and hope we're strong enough to fight everything."

So your module consists of....

DM "You see the town of X in the distance, you can tell it is being ransacked and there are a large amounts of fires all over the place. You can see barely the invaders are still there and that there is the shape of a large creature above the town circling it and sometimes shooting lightning from its mouth, what do you do?"

Player "How many invaders can we see again and can I roll knowledge to know what that flying thing is?"... rolls dice and gets high enough "its a dragon isn't it"

DM "There are over 100 invaders spread across the town that you can see, all of them in small groups, and yes, its an adult blue dragon flying around over the top of the town, but it doesn't seem to be super interested in destroying everything"

Player "Well still, we shouldn't just charge in as lvl 1 adventurers, we will all die against such a force, especially with such a powerful dragon there, we should flee now just in case they see the caravan and attack it"

*** Insert much DM trying to convince players to help the town but to no avail, they answer it is not in their characters nature or whatever******

DM *Sets down the Adventure* "Alright guys, you choose to not save the town and flee, might as well roll up new characters, we are going to have to start over and this time, please actually go into the town and fight things!"

Lord Raziere

2014-08-31, 06:32 PM

So your module consists of....

DM "You see the town of X in the distance, you can tell it is being ransacked and there are a large amounts of fires all over the place. You can see barely the invaders are still there and that there is the shape of a large creature above the town circling it and sometimes shooting lightning from its mouth, what do you do?"

Player "How many invaders can we see again and can I roll knowledge to know what that flying thing is?"... rolls dice and gets high enough "its a dragon isn't it"

DM "There are over 100 invaders spread across the town that you can see, all of them in small groups, and yes, its an adult blue dragon flying around over the top of the town, but it doesn't seem to be super interested in destroying everything"

Player "Well still, we shouldn't just charge in as lvl 1 adventurers, we will all die against such a force, especially with such a powerful dragon there, we should flee now just in case they see the caravan and attack it"

DM *Sets down the Adventure* "Alright guys, you choose to not save the town and flee, might as well roll up new characters, we are going to have to start over and this time, please actually go into the town and fight things!"

continuing this....

Player:......ok.....we go into the town and attack....

DM: you die! because you can't possibly defeat these things, your level 1. Lets try again. try to play to smarter.

Player:......uh......ok....we try to sneak in for some reason?

DM: your level one and cannot possibly be good enough to sneak by them! you die! try playing smarter.

Player: screw this, you just want to kill us over and over again. *group leaves*

TrexPushups

2014-08-31, 06:37 PM

Is it really such a giant DM sin to just start them in the town?

Let them fight/sneak their way out if they want or they could decide to help the defenders.

Or if they decide to let the town fall let them find something else to go do a cave to explore etc. You can let them stumble upon the successful raiders later and if they again decide to back off just keep letting the bad guys accomplish their goals and start applying consequences to the world.

Things like burnt out towns starting to become the default, roads becoming more and more dangerous.

hawklost

2014-08-31, 06:38 PM

continuing this....

Player:......ok.....we go into the town and attack....

DM: you die! because you can't possibly defeat these things, your level 1. Lets try again. try to play to smarter.

Player:......uh......ok....we try to sneak in for some reason?

DM: your level one and cannot possibly be good enough to sneak by them! you die! try playing smarter.

Player: screw this, you just want to kill us over and over again. *group leaves*

Except the module is built so that players CAN succeed at it. yes, there might be luck involved as well as some actual strategy in it, but there are multiple groups in my FLGS area who have made it into the town without dying. Of those, only a single player out of all the groups left who died against the dragon (yes, some people were lost when going out to fight for the town but none of those quests are required, only 4 whole quests in scenario 1 are required and they all work decently if the players are not jerks and are not stupid)

Thrudd

2014-08-31, 07:23 PM

Yes, as always, the players need to create characters who are motivated to save the town and/or fight the cult, or this isn't the adventure for them. It's not a huge problem, it just means that this adventure will basically be your entire game. You are making characters specifically to challenge the dragon cult, and their entire careers will be spent going through this adventure path. It isn't a module with which you can start a general, open-ended campaign of adventuring. I hope they decide to make some of those, too, and not just epic railroad adventure paths like this one.

I truly feel, looking at how the scenario is written, that parties who survive the dragon attack without at least one death were given a break by their DM. Unless they got lucky and managed to do enough damage or a crit in a single pass, before it has a chance to notice them, that dragon is coming back and blasting at least one of them. I feel like most DM's will fudge rolls or use kiddie gloves so their party doesn't get wiped out on this mission, because usually you don't run an adventure like this without the intention of getting to the end of it.
A lot depends on how the DM decides to fashion the wall, as well. The module gives no details whatsoever about the layout of the keep and its walls. Is there a tower the players can take cover under, popping out to take shots and then getting back inside? How wide and long is the wall? Is there anything else they can take cover under? These details will change the encounter entirely, even theater of the mind needs these things. The module mentions that the dragon's breath will kill a 1st level PC outright, so be sure to demonstrate it's power against NPCs before turning it against the players. This implies it will/should turn against the players if they start doing damage to it. It is up to the DM whether or not there is anything the players can do to increase their chances of survival. It is not a module which can be played without additional DM preparation in several instances, at least not in a way I'd be satisfied with.

Shadow

2014-08-31, 07:29 PM

It is not a module which can be played without additional DM preparation in several instances, at least not in a way I'd be satisfied with.
Then be prepared to be disappointed by 5e's modules in general, because I have a feeling that the new style (or return to the old style, if you want to look at it that way) is exactly what we should expect from the new system and its published adventures.
And I love that idea.

Thrudd

2014-08-31, 07:54 PM

So your module consists of....

DM "You see the town of X in the distance, you can tell it is being ransacked and there are a large amounts of fires all over the place. You can see barely the invaders are still there and that there is the shape of a large creature above the town circling it and sometimes shooting lightning from its mouth, what do you do?"

Player "How many invaders can we see again and can I roll knowledge to know what that flying thing is?"... rolls dice and gets high enough "its a dragon isn't it"

DM "There are over 100 invaders spread across the town that you can see, all of them in small groups, and yes, its an adult blue dragon flying around over the top of the town, but it doesn't seem to be super interested in destroying everything"

Player "Well still, we shouldn't just charge in as lvl 1 adventurers, we will all die against such a force, especially with such a powerful dragon there, we should flee now just in case they see the caravan and attack it"

*** Insert much DM trying to convince players to help the town but to no avail, they answer it is not in their characters nature or whatever******

DM *Sets down the Adventure* "Alright guys, you choose to not save the town and flee, might as well roll up new characters, we are going to have to start over and this time, please actually go into the town and fight things!"

If I were to run it (which I won't), I would make sure the characters have strong background motivations to save the town and hunt the dragon cult. I would also change it so the dragon doesn't show up until later in the night, or have the players already in the town when the attack begins. They wouldn't run screaming from the place because they have strong enough motivations that they are willing to risk death for the town. Also, the dragon mostly will fly around high up and doesn't look to be attacking anything, so it isn't like "The dragon is attacking!" but "there's a dragon out there we should keep our eye on." I might remove the dragon attack mission entirely, it's optional anyway.

Envyus

2014-08-31, 08:24 PM

level 1 does not mean you were born yesterday and have no knowledge of anything. if I was a wizard and spent the last 10 years studying creatures and such then yes I would know how hard a dragon would be to fight.

Ok make a Nature check if you score high enough then you know it's out of your league.

Shadow

2014-08-31, 08:28 PM

Ok make a Nature check if you score high enough then you know it's out of your league.

Not if you get enough people together it's not.
That's Bounded Accuracy in action. No longer can a level 20 character laugh at a mob of kobolds. If there are enough of them, the kobolds will take him down.
Same goes for a dragon.
To think otherwise is a fatal mistake (and a 3.x mindset, but remember, this isn't 3.x).

Malifice

2014-08-31, 09:27 PM

meta-gaming

Umm, no its common sense.

A young inexperienced PC knows enough about Dragons to know he has very little chance (if any) of defeating it.

Compare to a green soldier on the battlefield facing down a tank with a rifle. He may not know much about tanks, but he has a pretty good idea that he cant win this fight head on.

If that's the case then stop adventuring. Go home. Become a farmer. Because in your mind, you should never be ready for that fight, as I already explained.

See above.

"its ok to have a PC who is in it for the money and could not care less if the village dies."

No he cares. He just realises he cant do anything about it.

Just like our lone soldier above would care if a battalion of enemy insurgents with air and tank support were rounding up everyone in a villiage to kill them all.

Just because he is outclassed and has no ability to help those people, doesnt equate to him 'not caring if they die'. He would probably be pretty upset about the whole thing, but aside from joining them in their fate, what more can he do?

And people not knowing that difference is the exact reason why I despise evil characters and why neutral characters are usually just evil characters in symantic disguise. It's a reason for players to be selfish d-bags. But you're not playing solo; this is an heroic team game, so don't be a selfish d-bag. (not you personally, but the character in the hypothetical situation)

Evil does not mean 'selfish douchbag'. You may have had bad experiences playing with evil PC's in the past (most of us have, especially from immature players who equate 'Evil PC' with 'Psychopath').

For an example of poor Evil PC roleplaying; consider the situation where a NPC has annoyed the PC so said PC sneaks into that NPC's home and kills him while he sleeps. Unless said PC has consistently depicted his character as the most messed up serial killer in the history of the universe, then thats just poor and immature roleplaying. Were not talking about evil there (although it most certainly is an evil act) we are talking about a seriously deranged individual.

Im about to start a new 5e Campaign (Dragon Queen) with a LE Paladin of Vengance/ Cleric of Bane and im thoroughly looking forward to it. I dont particularly like the Cult (they killed my brother) so I have plenty of reasons to want to bring them to ruin.

Theodoxus

2014-08-31, 09:30 PM

To think otherwise is a fatal mistake (and a 3.x mindset, but remember, this isn't 3.x).

I wish my DM would understand that. Not that we're playing this module - but he definitely has a 3.x mindset... I get plate at 2nd level and the monk has a +1 shortsword. Huzzah. /facepalm.

Shadow

2014-08-31, 09:31 PM

lone soldier garbage

None of that lone soldier against a tank garbage applies.
You aren't a lone soldier. You're a group of adventurers who will be joining a couple dozen trained guards to defend the town. Remember that this is a collaborative game. You are not playing alone. So why, if you're not being selfish, would your example only include a lone soldier and not his squad?

As I just said a moment ago:
That's Bounded Accuracy in action. No longer can a level 20 character laugh at a mob of kobolds. If there are enough of them, the kobolds will take him down.
Same goes for a dragon.
To think otherwise is a fatal mistake (and a 3.x mindset, but remember, this isn't 3.x).

Malifice

2014-08-31, 09:47 PM

None of that lone soldier against a tank garbage applies.
You aren't a lone soldier. You're a group of adventurers who will be joining a couple dozen trained guards to defend the town.

Ok. Make it 5 lone soldiers facing down a tank. Its directly analogous to 5 novice characters facing down a large Dragon.

Its not metagaming for those soldiers to know they have no chance at all to win, just like its not metagaming for a group of novice PC's to know they have no chance to defeat the dragon.

Remember that this is a collaborative game. You are not playing alone. So why, if you're not being selfish, would your example only include a lone soldier and not his squad?

Ok. 5 soldiers with rilfles against a tank.

You get to splat 5.56mm ammo against Chobham armor at 5 times the rate before you all get killed.

That's Bounded Accuracy in action. No longer can a level 20 character laugh at a mob of kobolds. If there are enough of them, the kobolds will take him down.

Lol. One minute were metagamaing because we (as PC's) sensibly run away from a huge dragon.

However PC's knowledge of 'bounded accuracy' is apparently not metagaming.

You might want to look up the definition of 'metagaming'.

Shadow

2014-08-31, 09:54 PM

Lol. One minute were metagamaing because we (as PC's) sensibly run away from a huge dragon.

However PC's knowledge of 'bounded accuracy' is apparently not metagaming.

You might want to look up the definition of 'metagaming'.
You're obviously going to metagame anyway.
You may as well metagame with the proper ruleset in mind....

And honestly, it's not even metagaming to know that there is safety in numbers. The less of us there are, the more dangerous it becomes. The more of them there are, the more dangerous it becomes.
That's not metagaming. That's common sense applicable to every situation, both in game and out.

Malifice

2014-08-31, 09:59 PM

You're obviously going to metagame anyway.

Running away from a large dragon is not 'metagaming' in any sense of the word.

And honestly, it's not even metagaming to know that there is safety in numbers..

I agree. Just like its not metagaming to know that there are some fights you can not win.

Although there are more than one way to skin a cat.

Shadow

2014-08-31, 10:06 PM

I've already responded to both of those points in earlier posts.

Malifice

2014-08-31, 10:19 PM

I've already responded to both of those points in earlier posts.

Cool.

My LE Paladin certainly wont be fighting the dragon (should it happen; our GM has a fun habit of changing things up). Im not suicidal. And my character wont give a toss about the town or the villagers. They can all burn for all I care. If they die, its because they werent strong enough to fight for themselves.

I do have in issue with the Cult though.

GreenETC

2014-08-31, 11:06 PM

I agree entirely with the discussions of the lack of player choice or safety in this module, but I can't say it's much different than older modules, which would do things like "you open the door and fall into a pit of poisoned spikes, save vs poison or die." Oddly enough though, I actually like the champion encounter, while disliking the dragon.

I feel like the dragon should not be something the party is trying to fight, because it either kills them or creates a false sense of character power. In my 3.5 RHoD campaign, I had trouble convincing some of my party that a medium sized green dragon was something they could challenge at level 5, simply because dragons have that kind of reputation in stories. High danger, and I know for certain I would definitely see the obliterated guards fighting it to be a sign that I shouldn't join in if I value breathing. And this isn't even something bounded accuracy is going to fix: sure, a bunch of mooks fighting a high level enemy can actually be effective, but the dragon can actively obliterate multiple people with no chance of failure, leaving it as a suicide mission with no sign of a chance of success.

The champion, on the other hand, feels like it would be perfect if he didn't have his action surge or coup de grace the character once he wins. It's actively encouraged that one of them go fight him, but the town doesn't really care if they say no, and someone else will go in their stead, so it's very much stepping up to take a beating from a guy you should expect to beat you, especially after going through the entire rest of the module. While it's a bit disingenuous to pretend the players have the free choice to stand up to him, it is at least a decent motivation for the players if they see him again. However, it's not even a decently fair fight, considering the guy can take 4 attacks on his opening turn and then stabs the player while they are down for no reason. Just have him spit on the body and move on and that will give them a nice sense of "this guy is a ****."

MustacheFart

2014-09-01, 12:03 AM

The champion, on the other hand, feels like it would be perfect if he didn't have his action surge or coup de grace the character once he wins. It's actively encouraged that one of them go fight him, but the town doesn't really care if they say no, and someone else will go in their stead, so it's very much stepping up to take a beating from a guy you should expect to beat you, especially after going through the entire rest of the module. While it's a bit disingenuous to pretend the players have the free choice to stand up to him, it is at least a decent motivation for the players if they see him again. However, it's not even a decently fair fight, considering the guy can take 4 attacks on his opening turn and then stabs the player while they are down for no reason. Just have him spit on the body and move on and that will give them a nice sense of "this guy is a ****."

I agree with pretty much everything you said regarding the Champion with two exceptions: 1) He should also not have had the multi-attack OR quite as many hitpoints. 6d12 HP is ridiculous for against a single 1st level character. 2) I dislike the champion for the very aspects you've pointed out.

It's motivation to a single player via deception and negative re-enforcement. It doesn't really motivate the party. Assuming you didn't actually die against the champion (like my character should have if the death rules were understood correctly), then what kind of a big deal is it to the party? I mean really? You went out, ate the damage for them, the woman was freed, and the bad guys left. Oh and your character was healed. So really....no real harm no foul.

For the entire party to be motivated by that 1 on 1 encounter in any way you would either need to have the most loving, "we're all best friends forever" group OR have players who are playing good characters who witness the champion KILL one of their party members. That's clearly why the Coup De Grace is in there. My dm left that part out which is sad because that's the one bit of actual motivation for the rest of the party.

In other words, it's clear that the designers intent was to invoke the response of "What? This was supposed to be a fair fight. Why did he Coup De Grace him? That bastard" without necessarily killing one of the players (ie...the townspeople come out and heal him). That's weak motivation at best.

All I can say is, don't fight that guy as a half orc who still has their racial endurance ability (ie. you pop back up at 1 hp the first time you're taken to 0 per long rest). It's guaranteed death of the character with a follow up attack.

On the other hand, maybe the encounter did function as it should because it pissed me off. I'll now take charge of my group and pursue them scaly bastards with the intent of tossing the "oh so fair..." Champs head down the stairs.

Arzanyos

2014-09-01, 12:07 AM

Doesn't Overkill damage not work in this edition? Like, he takes you to 0, you pop back up to 1, he hits you for 25 damage, and you go back down to 0, I think that's how that works.

Shadow

2014-09-01, 12:12 AM

Doesn't Overkill damage not work in this edition? Like, he takes you to 0, you pop back up to 1, he hits you for 25 damage, and you go back down to 0, I think that's how that works.

What's your constitution score? At level 1, let's say 14.
Any damage you take which brings you to zero does exactly that.
Any damage left over from that attack is compared against your Con score.
So if you had one HP left and he hits you for 13, then that 13 damage takes you from 1 to 0.
The remaining 12 is compared against your Con score. Your score is 14. It left 12 damage. You are not dead. You remain at 0 HP.
If the attack had done 16 damage, then 16-1=15, which is more remaining damage than your Con score, and the attack would have killed you on the spot.

captpike

2014-09-01, 12:13 AM

Not if you get enough people together it's not.
That's Bounded Accuracy in action. No longer can a level 20 character laugh at a mob of kobolds. If there are enough of them, the kobolds will take him down.
Same goes for a dragon.
To think otherwise is a fatal mistake (and a 3.x mindset, but remember, this isn't 3.x).

were that the case your help might be appreciated but hardly needed. if your just guards numbers 57-61 then you are not really making a difference you just a few more drops in the bucket.

Sartharina

2014-09-01, 12:14 AM

No he cares. He just realises he cant do anything about it.

Just like our lone soldier above would care if a battalion of enemy insurgents with air and tank support were rounding up everyone in a villiage to kill them all.

Just because he is outclassed and has no ability to help those people, doesnt equate to him 'not caring if they die'. He would probably be pretty upset about the whole thing, but aside from joining them in their fate, what more can he do?He can decide to be Audi Murphy! Or Alvin York! Or Yogendra Singh Yadav!

Malifice

2014-09-01, 12:15 AM

He can decide to be Audi Murphy! Or Alvin York! Or Yogendra Singh Yadav!

Make some sticky bombs perhaps.

Then again that was a TPK aside from Private Ryan and a few others.

He who runs away, lives to fight another day.

Arzanyos

2014-09-01, 12:16 AM

To quote the emperor "A single grain of race can tip the scale. One man may be the difference between victory and defeat."

GreenETC

2014-09-01, 12:18 AM

I agree with pretty much everything you said regarding the Champion with two exceptions: 1) He should also not have had the multi-attack OR quite as many hitpoints. 6d12 HP is ridiculous for against a single 1st level character. 2) I dislike the champion for the very aspects you've pointed out.

For the entire party to be motivated by that 1 on 1 encounter in any way you would either need to have the most loving, "we're all best friends forever" group OR have players who are playing good characters who witness the champion KILL one of their party members. That's clearly why the Coup De Grace is in there. My dm left that part out which is sad because that's the one bit of actual motivation for the rest of the party.
I will agree that it's still pretty bad design, and they should have made him much less powerful than they did, but if they hadn't slapped two unwinnable fights together, it probably wouldn't seem that bad. I don't really see him as a motivator for you to hunt him down, because the module specifies that you see him again later, which is where I feel it works. You don't need to chase him down, but when you run into him again you say "Hey, it's that jerk who kicked my ass when I was level one, and now he's directly in my way, but now I'm way stronger, so it's time for some payback."

But yeah, they definitely could have found a better way to make him strong enough to not lose to a PC while not being BLATANTLY overpowered. Maybe slap a few levels of another class on there to keep his chances of hitting high without giving him tons of attacks, don't give him an action surge to beat you to death, let him disgrace you without outright slaughtering you and then leaving. Recurring villians can be fun, if you do it right and not ham-handed.

Sartharina

2014-09-01, 12:38 AM

Make some sticky bombs perhaps.

Then again that was a TPK aside from Private Ryan and a few others.

He who runs away, lives to fight another day.

Or he could be Dirk J. Vlug - One man, one bazooka, five dead tanks.

MustacheFart

2014-09-01, 12:43 AM

What's your constitution score? At level 1, let's say 14.
Any damage you take which brings you to zero does exactly that.
Any damage left over from that attack is compared against your Con score.
So if you had one HP left and he hits you for 13, then that 13 damage takes you from 1 to 0.
The remaining 12 is compared against your Con score. Your score is 14. It left 12 damage. You are not dead. You remain at 0 HP.
If the attack had done 16 damage, then 16-1=15, which is more remaining damage than your Con score, and the attack would have killed you on the spot.

You are not entirely correct. The extra damage is compared against your maximum hit points not your constitution modifier.

Instant Death -
Massive damage can kill you instantly. When damage reduces you to 0 hit points and there is damage remaining, you did if the remaining damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum.

Shadow

2014-09-01, 12:44 AM

Ah, that's what it was, yeah. Regardless, at first level that number is very low.

MustacheFart

2014-09-01, 12:45 AM

I will agree that it's still pretty bad design, and they should have made him much less powerful than they did, but if they hadn't slapped two unwinnable fights together, it probably wouldn't seem that bad. I don't really see him as a motivator for you to hunt him down, because the module specifies that you see him again later, which is where I feel it works. You don't need to chase him down, but when you run into him again you say "Hey, it's that jerk who kicked my ass when I was level one, and now he's directly in my way, but now I'm way stronger, so it's time for some payback."

But yeah, they definitely could have found a better way to make him strong enough to not lose to a PC while not being BLATANTLY overpowered. Maybe slap a few levels of another class on there to keep his chances of hitting high without giving him tons of attacks, don't give him an action surge to beat you to death, let him disgrace you without outright slaughtering you and then leaving. Recurring villians can be fun, if you do it right and not ham-handed.

Right. Of course you're not going to actually hunt him down but figuratively. You'll be keeping an eye out for him. I just hope (but highly doubt) they wrote in a part about him being willing to accept rematches. It would be lame if you encounter him and your party members jump in or his do. Honestly, if I told my party hold back while I get a rematch and they didn't....yeah that would probably result in a death of a party member due to inner party conflict.

MustacheFart

2014-09-01, 12:51 AM

Ah, that's what it was, yeah. Regardless, at first level that number is very low.

Correct-amundo.

I had 16 hitpoints and I believe the max you could have at level 1 without any magic is 19 (dwarf + 18 starting con + tough feat).

Beowulf DW

2014-09-01, 12:54 AM

Or he could be Dirk J. Vlug - One man, one bazooka, five dead tanks.

I often think that reason these names are well known is that they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Otherwise, nobody would bother making a note of it.

Shadow

2014-09-01, 12:55 AM

Correct-amundo.

I had 16 hitpoints and I believe the max you could have at level 1 without any magic is 19 (dwarf + 18 starting con + tough feat).

My turn.
No toughness feat on a dwarf at level one. No feats at level 1 unless you're a human using optional rules.
So 17 with an 18 Con hill dwarf barbarian, or with a human barb at 16 Con & Tough feat.

MustacheFart

2014-09-01, 01:02 AM

My turn.
No toughness feat on a dwarf at level one. No feats at level 1 unless you're a human using optional rules.
So 17 with an 18 Con hill dwarf barbarian, or with a human barb at 16 Con & Tough feat.

Hah...yeah that one slipped by me. But wait a sec on the human. You could have an 18 con & Tough feat for a total of 18.

Shadow

2014-09-01, 01:03 AM

Hah...yeah that one slipped by me. But wait a sec on the human. You could have an 18 con & Tough feat for a total of 18.

Not with a point buy you can't, and rolling an 18 is unlikely. Possible, sure. But unlikely.

Sartharina

2014-09-01, 01:17 AM

I often think that reason these names are well known is that they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Otherwise, nobody would bother making a note of it.Like Player Characters!

MustacheFart

2014-09-01, 01:31 AM

Not with a point buy you can't, and rolling an 18 is unlikely. Possible, sure. But unlikely.

Right, but I was stating the highest possible without magic so you have to account for rolling an 18.

Durazno

2014-09-01, 02:56 AM

He turns up again in the module, doesn't he? But this time the PCs are a little tougher and it's not a one on one match.

ambartanen

2014-09-01, 03:50 AM

All the talk about soldiers fighting tanks with relation to the dragon really got me thinking. First level characters attacking with their normal attacks really is equivalent to trying to shoot a tank with a regular rifle, hoping to hit the slit the gunner looks through. If you want to include the equivalent to anti-tank weaponry, put some siege engines within reach. It feels a lot more heroic if the characters see one of the crews operating the ballistae on the walls get taken out by the dragon. Now you are giving them access to an actual weapon that can hurt a dragon and it's more realistic believable that scoring a hit with a huge boulder or five foot long bolt will drive the dragon away. You also have an out for not outright killing them- next time around the dragon realizes taking out the machines themselves is more useful than frying the puny humans operating them.

Hah...yeah that one slipped by me. But wait a sec on the human. You could have an 18 con & Tough feat for a total of 18.

The highest starting stat for a human is 16. A dwarf could have a 17 in constitution if that's its highest stat. Generally, you won't have an 18 in constitution at first level unless your DM decided to make characters a lot more powerful than they are supposed to be. Anyway, I am pretty sure taking any damage while you are at 0 outright kills you so if that champion kicks you while you're down, you'll just die.

Edit: Oh, I was wrong. It just counts as at least one failure on the death saving throws. It can count as two or outright kill you but that is generally harder.

Envyus

2014-09-01, 04:06 AM

Right. Of course you're not going to actually hunt him down but figuratively. You'll be keeping an eye out for him. I just hope (but highly doubt) they wrote in a part about him being willing to accept rematches. It would be lame if you encounter him and your party members jump in or his do. Honestly, if I told my party hold back while I get a rematch and they didn't....yeah that would probably result in a death of a party member due to inner party conflict.

He does accept Rematches. If you lived he says he does not know whether he should feel disappointed or happy probably a bit of both.

He turns up again in the module, doesn't he? But this time the PCs are a little tougher and it's not a one on one match.

It can be. His guys are willing to stand down. He loves to duel.

Honestly I sort of a like him as a noble villain that the party has a bit of respect for.

Anyway when I run the Fight I don't intend to have him go all out from the start. First i am going to have him use his spear instead of his sword and unless he was in danger of losing I would say he would not use action surge or his breath weapon.

Theodoxus

2014-09-01, 01:53 PM

I ordered the module, but it hasn't arrived yet - but taking this and the other HotDQ threads into consideration, I'm beginning to get an inkling of what the encounter should probably run as. I love reading other people's takes on encounters and how to tune them better after actual play rather than theorycrafting them.

Malifice

2014-09-01, 05:39 PM

Rolled up (well.. point bought up) my LE Zhentarim Fighter (soon to MC into Paladin and Cleric of Bane) and ready to rock and roll this Friday.

Stoked.

Death to the Church of Torm!

Person_Man

2014-09-02, 08:42 AM

its not abuse if your using the rules as intended. it means the rules are broken.

Abuse was a poor choice of words on my part.

Basically the writers of 5E wanted to make movement as easy as possible.

Players generally don't have to worry about their exact position on the battlefield, don't have to worry about not being able to take their "iterative" melee attacks because they kill their first target but aren't standing next to another enemy, they don't have to worry about triggering an Opportunity Attack unless they clearly move away from an enemy they're adjacent to, etc.

If the players accepts this and basically move their character as they would "in real life" then problems rarely occur.

If the players (or the DM controlled monsters) read the movement rules and take advantage of the sequential turn based nature of combat, then a number of different problems can result, as I outlined.

Snails

2014-09-02, 03:36 PM

(Skipping forward...)

This may definitely be a problem in the edition, and I am still baffled about the decision for short rests to take a full hour. However, again, it sounds like your DM changed some things from the module. You have a full night of fighting in the keep, and you can easily work in a short rest. You aren't supposed to try to do *every* mission in the episode, I don't see how any party could survive that many encounters or get them all done in a single session.

All editions of D&D can suck royally if the DM and players have no sense of how to manage pacing. My guess is the underlying assumption in 5e is that the encounters are grouped so that they are "digestible" between short rests.

If you are not hurrying for some specific reason, you have time to do a quick scouting to look for danger in the immediate vicinity before taking that Short Rest. You do have 16 hours of potential adventuring in your day. Would 14 hours of adventuring be so inadequate that erring on the side of an extra Short Rest or two be a terrible choice?

Obviously you do not want to fritter the day away with many many Short Rests. But there must be a place for a healthy compromise.

I would note that in 1e or 2e or 3e, sometimes the party must take 10+ rounds to heal up after battle. For practical purposes the difference between 10 rounds and 600 rounds (1 hour) is not so big. Your enemies in the dungeon are either warned with a "scouting report" on your party or they are not. If they are warned and are capable of preparing a good battle plan, they will be buffed up the wazoo for you regardless of whether you dally or not.

Icewraith

2014-09-02, 06:01 PM

I like how sleep is amazing is on every category of the review XD

sounds like a good review. I'm not sure what the dragon is doing there either, but I'm guessing it's in some way related to the titual dragon of the module XD. still seems a little early, but I'm guessing the oil + mooks gift means your supposed to use that, so kudos :3

twf does look pretty awesome this edition as it has no penalties, besides limiting you to light weapons. and even then, if your using feats, a human can ignore that at level 1.

limited spells at level 1 is a problem, but that's the same with pretty much every edition (my cleric for the game I'll be playing soon has 5 1st level spells prepared but 2 slots. picking the use is gonna kill me o.0), and it seems crossbows still rule level 1.

so far, this looks to be a good combo of the speed of 3e, and some of the tactical focus of 4e, which makes me happy

also, poor worf-barian :smalltongue:

Good:
Sleep IS amazing. It made an otherwise incredibly difficult encounter manageable both times it was used. From the perspective of the player it felt great using it.

?:
Sleep is amazing. But, considering it uses up 1/2 of my daily spell slots, it damn well BETTER be amazing. No saving throw even!

Bad:
Sleep is amazing. None of the other spells available at first level seemed to compare.

Ugly:
Sleep is amazing. It's the sort of no-save encounter ending "I'm going to twiddle my thumbs for the next five rounds while you guys mop up" batman wizard style spell I was hoping to not see in 5e. (Granted, they probably shouldn't eliminate it as a playstyle either considering how important it became in both 3.5 and 4e.) I got KOed right after I cast it and nobody brought me up for the entire fight, and I still won the fight for everyone by knocking out the spellcaster with Bless and one of the nastier guards.

Also, can probably KO an entire 4-man adventuring party (or take out 3 of the 4) with some hot dice on the DM's part.

Regarding pacing:

The difference between ten rounds (one minute) and one hour is massive. If you're racing against time, you might be able to take one minute to recover from the fight and catch your breath, but no way can you take an hour. If enemies further in the dungeon heard the sounds of battle, yes either way they will be buffed or prepared in some way when you fight them. However if they actively go out to engage the party, it's entirely possible the party got ten rounds off between the time it took to throw on armor, buff up, maybe rally some minions, and roll out to wherever you think the fighting is coming from (depending on the size of the dungeon). Stealthy hunting monsters might take their time to arrive at the battle site to make sure they don't get ambushed themselves.

Yeah, a character or monster sprinting full-out can cover a lot of ground, but especially if the fighting sounds suddenly stop, you don't want to run into an adventuring party while running flat out along a corridor.