|
8 months ago ::
Sep 29, 2012 - 9:26PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
One thing I'm finding is that with the easy combats vs. kobolds, goblins, orcs, centipedes, stirges, zombies, skeletons, and even bugbears, the party can defeat equal numbers in just a few rounds. So, to challenge them, I'd have to throw 2x or 3x as many foes against them. That would bog down the game, and take 4-6 rounds of combat to clear up the mess.
If monsters were a little more dangerous (higher "to hit" scores and higher hit points and slightly higher AC), then we wouldn't have to throw so many against the PCs to challenge them, so even if it takes a little longer to kill them, the entire combat would probably take less time than a fight vs. 2x or 3x weaker opponents.
Every once in a while, it is satisfying for the players to be able to rout a small group of foes, but with the monsters and PCs calibrated as they are now, it happens too often.
I look forward to the next playtest package. Hopefully we'll see more dangerous monsters and combats will still be quick enough. I don't think it is the speed of combat that makes it more or less tense. If a combat was fast, but PCs were getting hit for some damage, then it would be tense. Right now, the PCs are just not getting hurt enough. At this point, it is easier to do damage to the party using hazards or traps than by attacking them with monsters.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 1:23AM
#32
|
|
|
Based on my experience - Too fast, No. Too short, Yes. The problem isn't the speed of the rounds, it is that the monsters lack both the hit points and the attack bonus to present even a mnor threat to the players.
If the monsters had three times the hit points (or the players attack bonuses and damage were reduced some and the monsters had double the hit points) the fights would last long enough to be worthwhile.
Carl
While I agree with this mostly I DO think that rounds are lacking a little in terms of complexity to engage the more tactically minded.
Though much of that will likely come in the (later) "tactical module" I'd say that combat is currently a LITTLE too "fast" and MUCH too "short".
If that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 9:21AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2009
|
Besides the low to-hit of monsters i actually found that my biggest problem was the serious lack of healing the party i run a game for has. Maybe if they had a cleric it would be better but they need to fight encounters where they easily route the monsters because if they get hit anything more then twice in a fight they immediatly have to start prepping someplace to take a long rest. Once their Hit Dice are spent they can't afford a challenging encounter. Not unless its the last one of the day because they know that while its not likely they'll get hit often they know that if they do there is no recovering afterwards.
I personally feel the out-cry of "bring back the five-minute Work day" to be abit over done as i've never seen it before. Or atleast not until the DDN playtest, which is unfortunate because even from the DMs side i could see the need to camp out mid-dungeon after two encounters.
I guess what i'm saying is though i would like to see the monster's to-hit go up some i'd also like to see either the PCs health get a bit of a jump and/or for a larger pool of Hit Dice. Gaining HD equal to your con mod + your level might work for that. Though i haven't tried it in my game yet.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 10:01AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2009
|
Without trying to get into too many specifics...
I think the current playtest Combat is a sort of bare-bones combat - something anyone can play in their game, that is D&D combat, to kill the bad creatures. I've found the combat system perfect in my game for spontaneous encounters (my group uses everything from "theater-of-the-mind" to "Let's get down on eye level with the miniatures on the grid to determine exactly how much cover we have"), so I like the presence of a more streamlined system. It's also much easier to learn, starting out, and is therefore much more appropriate to be "Core" than more complex combat systems.
That being said, I look forward to the more expanded combat modules Wizards has already stated it intends to produce (and right on the heels of Core, I hope). My incidental combats can be thrown together, fought, and moved on from as they occur (they pissed off the dwarves they were supposed to befriend, for example), and then I can have a full-fledged, complex, long battle sequence as the clincher to this week's episode. That gives my game a dramatic finish which is actually a bit more satisying than a shorter, simpler battle. And all the mini-combats don't overrun the game or slow the plot. I like both.
"Our idea of rules modules has a wide range of scope; sometimes, our rules modules might just be small tweaks and variant rules, while other times they could be large-scale changes and entirely new subsystems. We want people to make the game their own, and that means provided a whole array of possibilities based on what you, the players, tell us that you want." -D&DNext Q&A Blog, 8/29/12, Answer #3.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 10:50AM
#35
|
|
|
Simple HP bloat byt itself is never the answer. 4E found this out the hard way, then had to turn the dial back with MM3. What are the current symptoms?
1) Monsters have too few HP
2) Monsters do not hit very often, but when they do it's brutal
3) PCs deal damage to the point that they can 1-shot monsters (not precisely the same as 1)
Solutions to these problems?
1) If we bump the HP up a tad (and a tad only)
2) Bump the to-hit bonuses up, dial the damage back proportionally
3) Monsters can have higher ACs and use tactical maneuvers
Example, s-blocked for convenience:
Goblin
Show
Using the level 1 goblin from the playtest material, we see that:
A) It has 3 hit points.
B) It has -1 to-hit, 1d6-1 damage (mace), and +1 to-hit, 1d6+1 damage (bow)
C) It has an AC of 13
D) It has the Dirty Fighter (+2) trait, which gives +2 to damage rolls.
What do we get from this?
A) The HPs are extremely low. A single hit from a sling and it's dead.
B) Level 1 PCs typically have ACs between 12-17 (give or take). He's going to have to roll very high.
C) The AC is not atrocious, and potentially higher (by 1 or 2) than a level 1 wizard.
D) This is good. Very good...if it's used.
What can we do about it?
A) Bump the HPs up to 6. It could still be 1-shotted, but it's not guaranteed.
B) Bump his to-hit bonus up to +1/+3. Damage dialed back by -1/-3.
C) I think the AC is okay. Maybe a bump up to 14 or 15 wouldn't hurt.
D) Take full advatage of this. Goblins are best in swarms, and this trait was made for swarms.
Rewrite the goblin to:
AC: 15
Hit Points: 6
Mace: +1 to hit, 1d6-2 damage.
Bow: +3 to hit, 1d6-2 damage.
This creature is now more of a threat with his higher to-hit, not as instantly lethal with his damage dialed back a bit, and a bit harder to hit with an AC bump. This at least puts him in the 2-hit category as opposed to his usual 1-hit-dead category. Combat can still run quickly, but be more meaningful and potentially more damaging due to nothing more than the monsters hanging around longer.
The simplest way is simply an across-the-board increase to hit points on both sides. The monsters become tough enough to survive a hit or two, and the PCs don't get ganked every time they're hit either. Then the to-hit for monsters can match that of PCs, roughly. The whole problem with playtest 2 stemmed from trying to lower hit points. That forced a lowering of monster to-hit just to make the game viable at all, but clearly nobody really tried playing it with the current numbers seriously. Adding a flat CON value hit points to everything at level 1 and dropping a flat +3 to-hit on all monsters brings things ROUGHLY to where they should be. Note that damage output on both sides is reasonably OK.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 10:52AM
#36
|
|
|
I think the main thing is that the combats should be compelling, not necessarily longer. I hate difficult fights boiling down to standing and swinging at one another for longer, and we'll see who runs out of hit points first.
Basically I'd prefer that this comic: www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1...
becomes a thing of the past.
Maybe I just want a shadow of the colossus module for larger monsters or something, but the toe to toe fight is only fun for the first...2d6 rounds, tops.
Yes, if possible, this is the most important thing in 5E. More important than class balance, vancian or not wizzies and fighter ego.
How can the rules make a fight against a huge thing interesting without making it a hp-grind?
Well ...
Let me start with a disclaimer: I am generally not a fan of Called Shot rules - I find that they usually add complexity for little or no gain and are difficult to balance. (And I seem to recall an SKR rant from a decade ago with that general idea).
However - much of that assumes you are talking about creatures around your own size. If you are attacking another medium creature - hitting that eye is so unlikely that any extra damage is a wash.
But when that eye is the size of a dinner plate.
I could see a manuever for a called shot - perhaps level dependant - with creature size playing a role in the attack. Perhaps you can only do a called shot on a creature at least two sizes larger than you are. Take a shot with disadvantage, if you hit you do damage equivalent to a critical hit. (This would also help to balance out the hafling's knockback being less effective due to size).
There could even be a manuever to climb or run up a creature at least two (three?) sizes larger and gain advantage by doing so.
Carl
In contrast, called shots were pretty much the thing that made 2E fighters & thieves cool for my group. Granted, we didn't do things by RAW in the least. Pretty much instead of "called shot," what we did could be more accurately described as "take a penalty to do a cool thing."
Slice at the powerful wand on the enemy mage's belt to destroy it? Called shot handles that(incidentally, the resulting explosion killed both the mage and my fighter, so... oops). Grab onto the dragon's tail before it leaps into the air? Called shot to grab. Strength to hold. Draw your sword to block the arrow fired at you from point blank range? That one I had to roll a natural 20 to achieve(and did, which was a nice contrast to the previous character who accidentally missed a group with a burning barrel of lamp oil and instead burned down the church at the bottom of the hill).
The lack of hard coded abilities in 2E allowed a lot of freedom that 3E and beyond lost(in practice at least. in theory, of course there was nothing stopping people from making up stuff just as they did before, but no one seemed to anymore). I'm not saying that we should necessarily go back to that(the feedback from the first playtest would paint me into the minority if I did), but rather that just because we have more clearly defined lines now doesn't mean you have to color in them.
All of that kind of stuff works fine in 4e. It worked fine in 1e and OD&D too. 2e in fact has the most awkward specific set of rules for it of any edition.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 11:00AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
For called shots, they should focus on equipment slots first like in 4E but extend it out to include items like fingers. Then you can implement sundering, call shots, or even grappling to take an item away.
The speed of combat is not a big concern, in comparison to being able to recover from combat to keep moving in the adventure. Since hit points influence both, I would like a dial that lets you establish the amount of hit points, and have another that allows you to modify the recovery rate, to etablish the grit and pace of an adventure; including combat. Of course, to hit and defenses play into this as well, but depending on the creature this will be all over the board and harder to guage.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 11:15AM
#38
|
|
|
For called shots, they should focus on equipment slots first like in 4E but extend it out to include items like fingers. Then you can implement sundering, call shots, or even grappling to take an item away.
The speed of combat is not a big concern, in comparison to being able to recover from combat to keep moving in the adventure. Since hit points influence both, I would like a dial that lets you establish the amount of hit points, and have another that allows you to modify the recovery rate, to etablish the grit and pace of an adventure; including combat. Of course, to hit and defenses play into this as well, but depending on the creature this will be all over the board and harder to guage.
I think the difference between packet 1 and packet 2 illustrates the pitfalls with just trying to scale by sliding hit points. It isn't that it fails to work for SOME definition of works, but you will find the results aren't without undesirable side effects.
This is why I find it hard to believe there's some simple 'Module' that you will use that magically makes the game be 'gritty' or 'heroic' or whatever. It just doesn't work that way.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 11:20AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2010
|
I always say length of combat is a problem when nothing interesting happend on it, just like in a movie where a long boring sequence happend without anything memorable or interesting on it....that's kinda of the problems of D&DNext, combat is boring and unexciting.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 30, 2012 - 12:38PM
#40
|
|
|
I always say length of combat is a problem when nothing interesting happend on it, just like in a movie where a long boring sequence happend without anything memorable or interesting on it....that's kinda of the problems of D&DNext, combat is boring and unexciting.
Yeah, I ran about as boring a 4e fight as I have ever had the other night. It wasn't BAD, but it was too long. I was just tired and kind of out of ideas, and wanted a fight to get the PCs on their toes. It was OK, but there wasn't anything going on except everyone running around whacking on each other. It was a straight up knock-down-drag-out. It did burn some PC resources, which is OK, but there just wasn't any real plot significance.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
