Community

The underlying theme I'm seeing in these forums is a complaint about combat and the abilities or lack thereof of the characters to perform in combat. D&D is not just a game of combat. The fact that the mechanics of combat are being simplified and every class is not balanced perfectly in combat is a good thing in my opinion. Because there is a heck of a lot more to do in D&D than just combat. And characters should all have a chance to shine in different areas of the game.

What I see from 5e is the possibility to actually be able to get the full D&D experience when our group sits down for a session and not just 3-4 hours of grinding combat. I want to be able to engage my players in a plot and story that is interesting. I want them to have fun exploring, finding secret passages, discovering the wonders of the game world, interact with the inhabitants, solve puzzles, and more.

I think that's what was lacking so desperately in 4e. Yes, you could do all those things in 4e, but at the expense of time and the flow of the game. It could become boring and mundane to sit through 1-2 hour combat encounters to get to the next step in the adventure. Combat should be fun and engaging, but not dominate the entire session.

I used to write RPGA tournament modules that took up a 4-hour slot and, if converted to 4e today, would literally take at least 4 of those 4-hour slots to complete. That's just my guess, but there's no doubt that you could do so much more in a 2e adventure in the same amount of time than you can do today in 4e. More combat, more exploration, more role-playing. A much more balanced game. I believe 5e is shaping up to be that kind of game again.

May 30, 2012 -- 2:53PM, Mand12 wrote:

True.

But do you really want rules about non-combat roleplaying in the books?

I agree, we don't need many rules for non-combat role-playing. Some base stats, and a few suggestions are enough. I don't want to roll cha each time I have to interact with an NPC just because the rules tell me to do so. Let role-playing be...

May 30, 2012 -- 2:53PM, Mand12 wrote:

True.

But do you really want rules about non-combat roleplaying in the books?

Yes oh yes I most certainly would. Both rules adn definetly guidelines.

The ratio between combat and non combat; rules and guidlines may be debatable but their existence is not (to me).

I do of course not expect them to be this early in the playtest in there.

I think the point of my thread is being misunderstood. I want a game of D&D that isn't combat-centric. That is, one that is rules-light on combat so that combat doesn't dominate a session. I want to engage the players in other ways and I want them to be able to do much more in a single session, even if that means more combat encounters. That may seem strange to say that, but if the combats go much quicker and we can have more variety then that's more fun than grinding out fewer combat encounters. But I really want a balance between combat, exploration, role-playing, puzzle-solving, storytelling, and all that. And I want to be able to digest much more in the same time period. That, to me would be much more satisfying than what we have today.

What I see so far from 5e is that it supports what I am advocating. I've only run one short playtest so far, but combat went fast and was easy to run so I'm encouraged that 5e will deliver what I'm looking for. I will be playtesting some more tonight and we'll see if that opinion still holds up.