Since the thread where it started from is currently locked, I wanted to address a side topic that was building.
In recent days, I've become a vocal opponent of how deadly 1st level is. A bugbear, a wolf, and 2 goblins is a "challenging" encounter, not a "hard" encounter. Bugbears do 11 damage on a hit without their special +7 damage ability (using average numbers here).
Someone said that there are plenty of hard video games and people love to play them. This comparison doens't fly. These monsters that I'm complaining about aren't "hard". There's nothing "hard" about "Welp, there's a 50/50 shot that your character is going down in one hit". That's a random number on a random die roll.
When a video game is hard, it is challenging your reflexes, skill, and memory. It's a different kind of game. If a video game had a room where you had a 50% chance of dying, with nothing that you can do on your own except cross your fingers and hope you luck out, no one would call that a "hard game".
Discuss.
I don't know how you end up at a game full of randomised events, events that can get your character killed, but not see it as part of the difficulty of play?
Yes, it's hard to gamble - because you have to be willing to risk something. The risk adverse will shy away - that is what the difficulty is - to avoid ones propensity to be risk adverse.
Some find it so hard they think there's no difficulty in a random system at all. Because they just. Don't. Do. That.
Also this all ignores the theatre of the mind manouvering players might do to get the better of a monster, as if D&D was a pure boardgame.
If you're going to use the argument that D&D isn't a computer game then you can't also use theory-crafting and mathematical absolutes in your argument against difficulty as they form the same fundamental base for balance and effect. Computer games use math, ergo, math is bad in D&D.
See how slippery a slope this is?
In other words, stop arguing about the game and go out and play it.
Xeviat,
What you are talking about actually has a name in game design: "fake" difficulty. It used to be very common in games in part because of early computer architecture limitations and in part because quite frankly in game design we didn't know any better. In more recent games (of all sorts), low success due to factors beyond the player's control (i.e. fake difficulty) are generally being either removed or mitigated.
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
I have mixed feelings about this aspect of 5e.
I started playing D&D in 4e. From what I read, that edition did not have a hard first few levels, unlike other games.
But I still kinda like the idea that if you mess up, you die. This is a harsh world, even for adventurers. Don't mess around with bugbears or whatever, you are not "equipped" to deal with this monster. If you see one, you run.
I also think it kinda sucks to have your character stripped away from you, especially if you put a lot of work/thought into that character. You want o feel powerful or important. You want to think you're special.
I'm pretty drunk right now. I'm sorry I can't contribute more, but like I said I'm confliced. I see both sides too well; I can'd decide what side I'm on.
Polaris wrote:
I firmly believe that no PC in D&D, or any TTRPG really, should die from one bad roll (or a DM's good roll). Bad decision, maybe. Several bad rolls; oh well, sure. But, one deadly roll? Never. Just like no PC should die from a DM who sees the game as Me vs Them, or even a DM who honestly doesn't get the rules because they are obtuse, overly complicated, or poorly explained.
Video gamers complained about games being too 'unforgiving' for ages. Now, many video gamers complain that games are too easy. (Sound familiar? 4e vs. older editions comes to mind...) So, there are tons of new retro games that boast about how 'hard' they are. They are apparently really popular these days. In fact, at least one AAA list video game property is part of it: Dark Souls1 and 2. Its first and foremost bragging/selling point is how unforgiving it is.
But when you die in a video game, you can reset, you can do the level over, ad nauseam. In D&D, this is never even mentioned as an option. You die in D&D, you have 2 choices: Ressurection, or roll up a new PC. Most modern games also have an 'easy, medium, hard, hell, nightmare, bloody rain of death, etc.' settings that are super easy to dial in. Presumably, the math making up the video game adjusts simply, and accordingly.
D&D influenced the hell out of video games for the better for many decades. Maybe D&D should look to video games for influence nowadays. Not in a "the student has become the master" sense; but as an intelligent older parent, with a grown child, might just ask their kid for advice now and again.
LFK wrote:
I prefer harder myself. I used to play Command and COnquer on Brutal/Online vs other human, Civilization on deity mode etc for games I master at least.
grendel111111 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Fallstorm wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
I think it's too soon to jump to the conclusion that the game is too hard or too easy. We don't even have the Core Rulebooks yet. I think it's best to reserve judging the entire system until we've had a chance to fully play and test the game with all of the core rules. There is no substitute for actual experience playing the game at a table with friends.
LFK wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
What is hard is achieving the goal despite the odds of getting killed. It's not the odds of getting killed. My players go in knowing they can die and they act accordingly to mitigate risk. I've discussed at length on these boards and others with people over the whole game of risk mitigation. For me it's a lot of fun. For others it is not their cup of tea. If you just want to encounter the monsters and fight without any strategy or planning beforehand, then I agree you should seek a more forgiving game or at minimum go to 3rd level.
I though want a game where the players act like it's their lives on the line and not their characters. They wrack their brains for every advantage they can to defeat the enemy. They are willing to consult sages, build traps, research out optimal kill zones, and so forth. Every battle isn't that way of course but these kinds of battles happen. The Ogre comes out and the group realized they are way out of their league and they run. After running away, they make camp and plot their return. How can they turn the tables against this Ogre who is obviously far above an appropriate encounter challenge? That is the stuff of greatness and what I love about D&D. I realize other people totally go cold on the thought of playing that way. I don't know why personally but that doesn't matter. Just know what you want and seek it.
I want players who are personally challenged and afraid for their characters lives most of the time.
MrHotter wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
LFK wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
What the heck is wrong with your character going down in one hit at 1st level?
I think it makes the game extermely fun. In this edition, 1st level characters are not professionals. They are amateurs it the definition of having 0 XP which means they have NO experience. Like it or not that's the default. All you can do now is just tell us how you would change the first few levels of play for your game. Don't be afraid to make the game your own. . Perhaps you can tell us how you would make the game your own in that regard, but don't assume that everyone else wants characters to be heroes at first level.
OP is right - D&D isn't a video game. In video games like Mario or Legend of Zelda, there is a continual storyline centered on my one protagonist, who will always make it to the end as long as I keep playing (and I'm not just button-mashing). There is a sort of temporary risk of defeat, but in no way can I ever lose so badly that death takes on any more meaning than a similarly temporary delay.
On the other hand, D&D, to me, reserves the right to some sincere leathality. If a bugbear clocks in at the top-end of damage for their CR, then the onus is on me as a DM/designer of adventures to place them approriately in the context of the game. If a DM prefers a softer level of lethality, they are entirely empowered to arrange things that way. Unless you've got a raging hardon for a bugbears-are-your-only-enemies game at 1st level, I really don't think there's much more to be said.
Bugbears hit like a truck. Use wisely. Or, barring said wisdom, come cry foul on the forums.
kev777 wrote:
If you're worried about getting dropped in one hit, then bring along a damn cleric to throw a healing spell your way.
Monsters are only hard if you aren't properly equipped to face them, or clever enough to twist the odds greatly into your favor.
I wrote this in another thread. Looking at monster challenge in a void doesn't reflect how D&D actually plays at the table. The game has PCs who can be clever and come up with solutions other than hacking. And a DM to guide them. Here's what I wrote about the D&D Starter Set adventure. Has spoilers.
In the first level adventutre, the DM is advised of at least two ways the party can take on the bugbear, wolf, and two gobs other than head on only.
First, the party can rescue an NPC fighter. The fighter will stick around until the PCs reach the city. A nice piece of advice is included on how to run an NPC (ie play him like a real person with his own goals and who wants to live).
Second, the party can sneak up on the bugbear by climbing up a chimney. This option is mentioned in both areas--where the chimney starts and where it ends. The bugbear will be surprised by a party climbing up the chimney.
In a later adventure, more advice is given to the DM if the PCs decide to use disguise instead of straight on attack to enter a lair.
I think the advice for a new DM is really solid here. And the game should encourage players to think about more than just hacking away at monsters. Using the environment, allies, and information to succeed as well as swords and spells and sneak attacks.
In general, my thought is that players should only die if they make a mistake (typically more than one), or the dice just go against them. I'm not really a fan of the latter, either, but it happens. If the party is playing smart and have the dice Gods on their side and die anyways, something went wrong behind the screen.
But for the Starter Set, where new players are concerned? Ease up on them. If you know the person well, and know they can take losing a character in stride, that's great. But some folks, especially kids, might not handle it so well. I know it's fun to say "in my day, we lost thirty characters to a kobold. And we liked it. We looooved it!" but the world is a different place. D&D has a lot to offer not just as a hobby, but a social experience. Playing a TTRPG for the first time—especially if you're surrounded by a bunch of people you don't know too well—can be a very intimidating experience. For an extrovert, adapting to play might not be a difficult prospect, but for people who have trouble coming out of their shells it is probably a social anxiety hurdle. Keeping new people invested is more important than making them learn the hard way.
Now, where usual players are concerned, sure. . . kick off the training wheels. Bathe in the shredded ribbons of sheets of characters past.
Brimleydower wrote:
Grifford wrote:
Grifford wrote:
If you want to reduce the randomness and lethality just go with the average damage while they are 1st level
Or be like me and hack the #%@$ out of them and put the fear of goblins into them.
You can be disapointed all you want, but you won't know for sure how good or bad the guidelines are until you actually play the game and run encounters. Until then your opinions are only theorycrafted speculation. There is no substitute for real experience playing the game.
Caliburn101. wrote:
Some people like to be able to lose a character, or at least get knocked out of the fight, by a single hit. That level of risk is essential to their enjoyment of the game. Other people don't. They want to lose a character or a fight only after being given an opportunity to back down or making a conscious decision to assume that risk. Neither name calling nor reasoned arguments are going to convince anyone to switch camps. The only question is, what do you do about this fracture in the player base?
To my mind, the bugbear and the hob pose two problems. First, they make the designers liars. Supposedly, according to this weeks' L&L, monsters with CRs higher than the party should not be used unless you are intentionally trying to create a difficult or even deadly encounter. Hobs and bugbears are going to be difficult, potentially deadly encounters to level one heroes, but they are CR 1. This flatly contradicts what the devs said, and is likely to result in new DMs saying "hey, they're CR 1s, this should be fine, I don't need to telegraph to my players that this is one of those times they need to be extra careful if they want to not die." If the players haven't memorized the MM, their first indication that they were supposed to spend a lot of time on risk mitigation with this encounter might be when the bugbear lands his first hit, at which point it's way too late. The problem here isn't that first level characters shouldn't face off against things that can one shot them, it's that they haven't been warned that this is something that can one shot them. In fact, the designers have actively misrepresented to them that this is not something they need to be really worried about. This is the wrong way to handle things, regardless of which camp you actually fall into, because the player base that doesn't want to be one-shotted hasn't been warned. How hard is it to have a look at the damage figure? Not hard, but how hard is it to not have a look, either, trusting in what the dev's told you that an equal CR creature should be fine? If you just made them CR 2, both camps could have what they want. An objectively better outcome.
The other problem is that damage figures that high actually interfere with damage mitigation as a playstyle. There really just isn't a safe way to take on a bugbear. Even if you get him alone and finangle a surprise round, there's a good change that he'll survive long enough to take one shot in return, that that shot will hit and roll above average damage, and that that damage will be sufficient to flat out kill someone. This again is a matter of preference, I suppose, but it's important to distinguish between difficulty and stakes. They really are almost totally distinct concepts, and people keep treating them as identical. You can make bugbears and hobgoblins really tough, such that you need to employ every damage mitigation trick in the book to defeat them, without making them kill PCs on a lucky hit. As a simple example, if you doubled their probability of hitting but halved their damage on a hit, they would be (more or less) just as hard to beat. But the stakes of individual die rolls would be lower, so there would be much less chance of a lucky roll killing a character. While raising the CR to 2 would warn the low-stakes camp not to use bugbears and therefore be better, reducing the swing would let both the damage mitigation camp and the low-stakes camp actually use the material at level 1. It would, however, leave the people who actually like death-in-a-single-roll per se (as opposed to its impact on player behavior), out in the cold. So it's not a pareto improvement, but it may be utility maximizing over the player base as a whole.
Has the OP actually played the game at all?
I'd love to hear about an actual play session: How did your players go into an encounter? What were their reactions regarding the difficulty of the monsters? What tactics did they use?
Armchair game design, theorycrafting, and hypothetical number crunching are a dime-a-dozen.
Pass.
It does have to compete with them for the same type of audience, though.
So many of these discussions seem to be based around a dedicated refusal to play the game.
Roll it out. Grab a friend and make some characters and see how they do. Experience the learning curve. This theorycrafting nonsense is of marginal value, and what's worse, eliminates the factors that make TTRPGs unique: Novel approaches to novel problems.
For example:
Jon: You find yourself along an ancient, dusty path, bordered on all sides by scattered, thorny undergrowth. The trees blot out the early morning sun, leaving the path in shadows. The path ahead bends sharply to the left, disappearing about 160 feet ahead of you.
I know that there's a bugbear and two goblins just around the corner, waiting to waylay travellers. The Bugbear's on the left, and the two Goblins are on the right.
Szo'PhiKa: We should spread out. I don't like this.
Al-Rashid: Let's send Elu out ahead. She can scout that blind.
Elu: I'm not going in there alone.
Trell: I'll be right behind you.
Jon: So you're sending Elu out ahead, then Trell's taking the lead? How far out ahead?
Elu: About 100 feet.
Jon: Okay, so you're 100 feet ahead of the group. What's your marching order in the rest of the group?
Szo'Phika: Trell in the lead, I'll take the middle, and Al-Rashid in the back rank.
Al-Rashid: Why me in the back.
Szo'Phika: You're a Paladin, and you've got the best armor. We're gonna take it slow, and try to keep quiet.
Jon: Okay, I need Stealth rolls from everybody.
Everyone rolls their Stealth. Elu, the rogue, kills it with a 19. The paladin in his chain mail rolls a 3. Everyone and their cousin hear him coming. The bugbear and goblins roll their Stealth vs. everyone's Passive Perception. The Bugbear beats it, but Elu notices the two goblins. (She's a thief who focused on Perception and Stealth: she has a Passive Perception of 16.)
Jon: Elu, just as you approach the the bend, you spot two furtive shapes in the undergrowth. A pair of squat, ugly goblins are peering past you, whispering to each other and pointing down the path.
Elu: I speak Goblin, what do they say?
Jon: "Toughies a-coming. Remember, Shaggy gets the metal fella, we get the squishies."
Elu: Who's Shaggy? Crap. Okay, I'm going to stick to the shadows and sneak back.
See? That's just a tiny bit of a normal encounter. There are a million ways that setup could play out-- attempting to white room the scenario tells you astonishingly little about the actual challenge.
Tony_Vargas wrote:
I have no problem with a monster being able to drop a PC unconscious in one hit. My problem is with monsters being able to outright kill a PC in one hit. It doesn't matter if you "play smart", at some point the monsters are going to get the jump on the PC because a d20 decides outcomes. There is no smart decision to make when your killed by a hand full of bad perception checks.
If something's stronger than CR1 though, it shouldn't be listed as CR1.
To be fair, the recent article on encounter design explains that the CR system is not an exact science, as different situations can lead to great swings in difficulty.
further more, the article tells us that one single bugbear would be a moderate challenge for four first level players as opposed to "easy." If you want easy for your encounters and minimal risk that's fine, just use 20 xp perplayer or about 80xp budget for 4 level one players. So something like 3-4 goblins or a single hobgoblin would be a nice safe easy encounter. I think a single bugbear, assuming it dosnt get it's suprise attack, fits the category of "moderate challenge" for 4 first level players and should make a good boss fight. I did a few practice fights without suprise against two level one pcs (a "challenging" encounter") and they managed to come out on top.
In fact, I ran a made up scenario where a fighter and rogue are ambushed several times while hiking down a path over several hours. First was a bugbear that got suprise, but missed it's attack, the players won that one but needed a short rest for the rogue to spend a hit die and managed to heal back up to full. that is a "challenging" or even "Hard" based on the fact that bugbear got suprise (even if he did wiff). Next encounter was two hobgoblins that did manage to get suprise but the fighter with second wind shrugged off the first round of damage and they ended up winning. Another short rest was in order, this time for the fighter to spend his hit die and recharge his second wind. This is technically a "moderate" encounter but because the hobgoblins are only 1/2 CR it's actually between moderate and easy, and it felt that way when the rogues sneak attack could one shot a hobgoblins 11 HPs. Now, both characters were out of hit die, but at full health, not bad! Then came the wolves! The wolves are 50 xp and CR 1/4, so it should have been somewhere between "easy" and "moderate" encounter, but more towards "easy" compaired to the bugbears. Yet, it was wolves that did them in. One wolf rolled lucky on damage and took out the rogue in one shot with 2d4+2 damage rolling more than the rogues max hp of 7 HPs (yes,the SE were not power gamed characters!). The fighter then had a spell of low roles and got mauled to death.
Imagen That, the weakest monsters ended up taking out the pcs! What I noticed is that the fights were nail biting and intense. And, if it had been a proper 4 member party with a wizard and cleric, the fights would have been much easier. Still possible (though less than 50 percent likely) to be one shot from something like a bugbear at level one, but I like that. Level one is dangerous again. It won't take long to reach 3rd, which by then, death is probably going to be even more rare. I can't wait to see how it plays in an actual session.
oh, and the part about not using monsters of a CR of just one point higher than the party level that the article talks about? That is true lol. Did one fight with a CR2 ogre and it was a massacre. With 4 players yiu might have a chance but it's very likely to have some PC deaths or even a. Tpk if it's just a straight up fight. It's something to take note of as this is different thatn 3.x's use of CR, where a CR of one or two points above party level counted as the moderate to challenging difficulty. Ttt is not the case any more.
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
What on earth did people do before there were CR's and EL's?
Oh that's right, they used a bit of sense.
Emerikol. wrote:
akaddk wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
akaddk wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Fallstorm wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
akaddk wrote:
there are D&D computer game servers that focus on the Roleplaying in true sense.
for example: Neverwinter Nights 1 / Narfell.
Fallstorm wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
viper5 wrote:
akaddk wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
Fallstorm wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I am going to share my perspective on this topic of "D&D is not a Video Game" based upon the original poster's comment about balance in the first fight being "50/50" survival. I know we often say "This is a Game, not real life," but the rules are intended to model a certain realism that we can get behind and believe (suspension of disbelief). So, I am going to approach this from the perspective of someone with live combat (firearms and other) and Live Action Roleplay (LARP) experience. We all come to this table with something different under our belt, so I find it interesting when others bring their opinion from their perspectives and I will share mine with the same hopes of readers.
There are several things that I think we, as players and DMs, often borrow from our "media" raising as children, and entertainment as adults and gamers in the video game industry. I think we also overlook certain aspects of the game for the sake of "finding the fun." I will approach each of these in this "TLDR" post in the following order: Combat is Intense, Lowest Level of Practice, Mundane Realism, and Origins and Relations.
Combat is INTENSE
I once heard a player say "if he's wielding a shield, I'll just step around and hit his other side." Clearly this player had never wielded a shield nor seen one in real action. I heard another player say "I'll wait until it looks like he's going to shoot me with the crossbow, then jump out of the way." Clearly they had never had a firearm shot at them. What I am talking about here, ladies and gentlemen, is the lack of realism in our D&D game context. Because you are not your character, you cannot ever feel the intense feeling - chemical and emotional - that combat leaves upon him or her. Many of us have never had someone point a gun in our face, put a sword to our throat, or toss a grenade into our favorite tavern. There is an intensity in real life combat that cannot be transferred into a table top game. Likewise, there is a level of concentration and attention to detail that simply does not happen in the real world (consciously, sub-consciously it clearly happens - otherwise you couldn't catch a ball thrown at you).
How many of you have gone into a fight in a dungeon and the first thing that happens after "roll initiative" looks like six seconds of the greatest bloodbath in history? Heads lopping off, people dashing in getting hit once or twice, etc. Anyone who has been in a LARP experience can tell you that combat doesn't happen like that. When people are aware of each other, it is slow to build. The rising action takes quite a while of positioning and testing the will of the other team. Once you are in a situation that your body knows how to react - via training - you strike. This defensive combat leads to the combat that is not like movie combat. Movie combat makes you think that blows are traded "turn after turn." I'm sorry to say that most fights are finished as soon as they start - but they are slow to start.
As for comparison to a modern firefight, I will cite a soldier turned private security operative: "Have you been in a firefight? Well, I have. When you start shooting back, you don't hit s***. That's why I carry 7 magazines." We have been trained that "professionals" take one or two shots and get the job done. Well, yes, when they have the jump on someone and spend over 2000 hours in training, that happens. But where is that in D&D? Do you think your level 1 archer fighter is a 2000 hour professional? If you do, then I wish you the best in battle. You will be great. Otherwise, like the rest of "new combatants" you are going to have a hard time setting up the perfect scenario for success.
Finally, the intensity of combat leaves you shaking. People have "combat drops" (and we aren't talking parachuting - drops in their pants) all the time. It's common your first time in a fight. We forget that there is an emotional aspect to combat because we're "playing a game." No matter how vulgar the monster is you just killed, you're going to have a chemical and emotional reaction to it. It takes training - hours and hours of training - to turn that into the snarky (but accurate) answer to the question of "What do you feel when you take the kill shot?" "Recoil."
Lowest Level of Practice
Whether you're practicing on the gun range, the sparring mat, or on your instrument in a practice room, when it comes time to "perform" your art, you will always default to your lowest level of ability with the art. People rarely "rise to the occassion" without some extreme luck and/or inspiration beyond the psychological. In the years I spent as a firearms instructor, sometimes training young men and women who had never touched a firearm in their lives to carry in public with legal documentation to do so, we harped and harped on them that they needed to practice ALL THE TIME. What makes your character different? Absolutely nothing... except a d20.
When your fighter, or rogue, come into contact with a fight, they are using skills that they have honed day in and day out. All physical abilities are perishable skills - especially reactive skills (target acquisition, for example, is the reactive ability to determine which objects/persons are targets and which are not based upon perceived stimuli). If your character is not spending their downtime practicing, what are they? Lucky. They are living on a d20 luck system rather than their realisitc ability to be successful in combat via default training.
How do you implement this in a game? Ask your DM if the players can do a mock combat with some friends or against themselves. Practice your communication and tactics out of the dungeon to simulate the training and practice you would undergo with your adventuring companions. Sure, it's great to say it happened in the background... but when you take five minutes to decide what you want to do - backstab the Baron or take the shot at the Necromancer, even though your fighter has lined up a shot for you against the Baron... you aren't following the concept of appealing to your highest level of practice. You are falling to the lowest level. These scenes not only help you as a player, by allowing you to build strong practiced and shared tactics out of a dangerous environment where your character could die, but it gives you confidence as a player to trust your reasoning.
Do you have to implement this in the game? No. But it is an interesting exercise to understand the realistic expectations upon one of your characters. Your poor characters live through your terrible decisions by the grace of luck (d20). In a fight where you have a bugbear, goblin, hobgoblin and an orc against you... I hope you practiced. If you're relying upon that d20 to give you the game, you're missing the point of combat.
Mundane Realism
There are many things that we overlook in order to "find the fun" in the game. We overlook professions, family relations, emotional trauma, and having to use the restroom. How many times have you stopped in a dungeon (for any reason other than humor) to go pee? If you're drinking the proper amount of water, your character is going to have to pee if you take more than one short rest. Do you think about how thirsty or hungry your character is, or do you connect this to roleplaying a scene of social interaction only? Do you only drink from a flask when you are using it as a non-verbal cue of social interaction? How in character are you?
Anyone who has practiced building clearing will tell you that every door is a frightening moment. Each room you enter is a chance to get shot. You do not just rush in and take the treasure, no matter how good you are. You enter with practiced skill and tactical awareness. "Zero Dark Thirty" did a great job of showing the realistic assault style. When you see a target, you drop them before they can react and you snatch the life out of them to ensure that you do not have any further problems (bullets on target until the body hits the floor). Is it dark? Yes. Is it cold? Yes. Where does that translate in the happy reality of a D&D game?
There are certain things we just leave out in a D&D game because it is a game. Part of that is the realistic concept of a human, in plate and a greatsword, charging into a room filled with orcs alone. This, sadly, leaves combat and non-combat scenarios to the curse of realism: how boring and afraid do you want to be? Is being afraid boring? Is it exhilarating?
As an example, we found an abandoned house on some property that had squatters in it. The building was split into the equivalent of three D&D encounters or areas where encountering squatters would really suck. The entrance to the building (we picked the front door), the lower back half, and the upstairs. In this real situation, we knew that engaging anyone with our firearms or voices would warn anyone and everyone else in the house. It was dark outside, and there were two areas that had good light: the front living area and the upstairs. The lower back half was too dark for immediate interaction. The scene played out harmlessly - thankfully - but it gives you perspective on what your body does in combat, and what natural processes are needed. After clearing the kitchen and front den, we went upstairs without a break. We cleared the upstairs and then both I and my partner realized... it was time to pee. This house was condemned, so there were no restrooms (and someone had left a massive mass of human waste in the upstairs toilet to rot). It was a really hard decision to decide if we would exit the building to urinate in the woods or if we would clear the downstairs (dark) area next. We elected to exit the fire escape and relieve ourselves outside before returning to the job. After returning to the job, we cleared the house and found no one was physically on property so we set to searching the house and assessing damage to the property.
How does this relate to a D&D scenario? If you consider the house to be one large area of interaction, it was effectively one encounter. Step by step we cleared each room to our satisfaction and even took a five minute break in between. After this, we took a long hour rest to gather evidence and explore the house for the fun of it. This isn't an example of how combat and rests go, but about the mundane things that happen when you are doing what your characters do in the game world. Sometimes you have to pee. How do you make a rule for that in a game? Do you bother? Does it detract from the fun? For myself and my partner, that was a hilarious moment - sneaking out of a house so that the squatters wouldn't know we were there so we could relieve ourselves yards from boarded windows and destroyed fences. How do we get that mundane realism in the game?
Or do we forget it for the adventure at hand? This is part of the realism that we ignore when we say that our characters can take on sixteen monsters at once and then walk on to the next room without a thought.
Origins and Relations
We know the origin of D&D. We know it came from mass battle games. We know that origin of the dice rolling. We understand where these things interact with the strategy imagination of the players. How does it relate to the goal? What relationships from the origin can we create to the present system? Plenty - the class system, for one. Limitations on combat ability based upon class, second. Magic being powerful and flashy, third. The list goes on.
What relationship exists with that origin, your present character/campaign, and the real combat world?
That's for you to decide as a player and/or DM.
Conclusions
Many of these topics overlap and continue to touch upon this idea that combat and game interaction should compare with the real world.
Does it really need to?
If we say it is a game then we can omit any level of realism we desire for the sake of entertainment.
If we say it is a roleplaying activity then we can omit any level of probability we desire for the sake of realism.
If we say it is a roleplaying game then somewhere in the middle, a jedi must meet.
Can these monsters who deal twice my HP in one hit kill me? Sure. Do they get bonuses on their attack rolls that allow for a hit on a 10+ roll? Sure. But what am I going to do about that? What would a real life scene look like? Would I go in, swinging and guns blazing? Would I carry my shield high, slowly stepping defensively? Would I stay far out of reach and just let a volley of arrows destroy the enemy?
It's easy to say what the numbers equal, but what does that look like? What does it sound like? What does it smell like?
What does it feel like?
We are skilled craftpersons in the world of imagination. Let us remember not to get caught in the world of calculation and logic alone. Use them as tools to enhance the fun, not scare away the realism.
ivstin wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
akaddk wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Fallstorm wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
akaddk wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
I think the CR are about right. A level one party should be able to beat one bugbear (200 XP) about as easy as they could beat 4 goblins (200 XP). The extra situations in the fight could make either one more or less difficult.
They have CR 1/4 and CR 1/2 not because they expect people have level 1/2 characters, but they need to emphasize how many opponents it takes to make a fight difficult. Another CR 1 monster worth 200 XP is the equivelent of a level 4 wizard.
Since the bugbear is all about DPS and is supposed to be a 'challenge' for two level 1 PCs it pretty much has to do good damge or it just gets killed before being a threat. I'd rather not go back to the 4E method of balancing things by giving everything a lot of HPs to keep everyone alive longer. I prefer the lower levels in D&D because I'd prefer not to spend as much time resolving combat in my games.
Fallstorm wrote:
neomahakala108 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
TheZigZagist wrote:
On the gambling tip; that is one thing often seems to be forgotten about D&D: rolling those dice, humans inherently like to gamble, I read an article about it being addictive or something.
Guest855761860 wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
sure goblins can drop somebody jester, I would be sad if they couldn't. However 4 goblins can't kill somebody. If 4 goblins attack the wizard and they all end up hitting (piecemeal damage is more likely to come up partially) then the wizard will be brought down on the second arrow. The two arrows after that which hit will bring a character down to 1 death save. That is a nasty situation to be in, but it isn't an auto death.
That is the important distinction. A wizard (or rogue) isn't going to automatically die if a group of goblins get the jump on them. It its a bugbear there is a good chance that character will be dead. Same with the bugbears critical damage, autokill. Wheras a goblin will simply drop their opponent. In fact the only way for a group of goblins to kill a PC at first level in one round is for the first goblin to critical amd then the other three goblins to hit (in that order, the first goblin has to drop the PC). A fairly unlikely scenario (1.8% if my mathis right, which it might not be.).
Death is what worries me, not damage.
Also it's not about the players knowing, it is about the DM knowing. As it is the DM's tools classify the bugbear as a standard 1st level threat.
mestewart3 wrote:
An experienced GM can fix any problem that crops up in any system. I'm more worried about whether a new DM has the tools they need to properly gague the difficulty of encounters they are creating. A tool they have presented isn't working how the designers have stated it should (CR/XP in regards to the bugbear) I am suggesting a simple and easy fix.
Karnos wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
http://www.d20monkey.com/2011/03/04/rated-e-for-everyone/
The_Jester wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Even if a bugbear attacks from stealth, and getting a surprise melee attack on a 1st-level wizard (with an 8 Con), it has a 0% chance of outright killing the wizard.
emwasick wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
JonWake wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Flip this around. If you don't want monsters that can kill a PC in one hit, don't use them.
A Wizard can have as few as 5 hp at level 1 (with an 8 Con). So, limit yourself to monsters that can't do more than 9 damage. Perhaps adjust to fit your specific party. Don't use any monster that can deal enough damage to kill the weakest member of the party in one hit.
But the idea that a monster who only deals 1d8+1 damage would be CR 1 is silly. Unless the monster has a TON of HP, in which case the fight would be long and boring. And even then, it could kill the Wizard with a critical hit. So we really need a monster who only deals 1d4+1 damage. I think that might actually work for a CR 1 monster if it could deal that damage to EVERYONE. Like a magical construct that is blasting out magic missiles each round (no more than 1/target).
But I think what you are really looking for is CR 1/8 monsters. They will deal very small amounts of damage. You can send them at the party in small groups. Oh, but what if all four of them decide to attack the wizard? If the first one gets lucky and knocks the wizard out, the other three could kill him in one round! And I'm sure that saying, "Well, the DM doesn't HAVE to decide to have all of them attack the wizard" isn't an acceptable answer, right?
In the end, the solution is simple. Either give your characters more HP at 1st level (+Con score instead of Con mod is a good idea) or start at level 3. Done.
Arithezoo wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
LFK wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
I can't comment on the encounters in question, but regarding the underlying point that a random threat of immediate 'death' (0 hit points) is a buzzkill I can offer an anecdotal counter.
My first ever D&D game was in 1980 - Keep on the Borderlands, IIRC. My new character walked into the dungeon, fell down a pit and died. 5 minutes into the game and dead (not zero hitpoints).
I then played a home-grown dungeon and lost 3 or more characters in quick succession (so quickly I took to putting a number at the end of their name as a cognomen!!)
Now it's more than 30 years later and my love of the game is not diminished (a 20 year hiatus notwithstanding) and I am salivating at the thought of getting the Starter Kit with a bugbear in it that can potentially, but not probably, kill characters (mine or others') with a single hit.
PS: I am a slightly better player now than back in the 80s but only slightly. 
The_Jester wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
mestewart3 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Guest855761860 wrote:
LFK wrote:
First off the math in the Bugbear encounter is correct. CR is based off of a four man party. For any one familiar with 4th then basically the Bugbear is a solo like creature for first level characters. When looking at it in singular form, the Bugbear is worth 200 xp. One character gives 150 on basically the hardest level when making a fight. Right there that tells you a Bugbear one on one is way over but with a Party of 4 it's going to be a tough fight. 27 hp is not that big in the grand scheme of things. A fighter can at 2nd level take this boy down in one turn hence why a CR 1. Again you have to use both CR and xp as your builder for fights. Putting 2-3 bugbears against level 1 characters may be ok in xp budget but CR of 1 says you really should only use one. Any beginning DM will of course have to learn this and no amount of hand holding will help. I've been DM'ing for 31 years and any new system I still make mistakes. I've seen guys who know the system and then step in on the DM side and just cannot get things right on the first go. Anyone who gives up on the first outing wasn't going to stick to the game anyhow. I'm glad D&D is back to its roots. This system works and works well. The math works as I've been running creatures that are not there yet and it feels right. My players can't wait to come to the table this Friday. It's been years since I can say that about D&D. Learn the system before you come right out and say it's broken or needs fixing.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
JonWake wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Y'know, there is a learning curve for first time DMs, but I far prefer a system that's designed for long term players rather than first time users. Sure we're talking about the Starter Set, but the Starter Set provides an adventure, so encounter design isn't really an issue is it? If we're going to worry about the Bugbear math being so horribly broken that it will send new players fleeing from the game never to return, I think we'll have to see the encounter design sections of the DMG and Basic.
Of course, if there's a wizard at your table who thinks it's a good idea to play the lowest hit point class in the game (with a Con of 8) by marching into unexplored areas of the dungeon like a front line combatant, there probably isn't enough encounter design advice in the world to keep him from an early grave.
Fallstorm wrote:
So, I finally got to run the starter set adventure and an encnter with a bugbear. I don't want to spoil to much, I will just say that the encounter was a bugbear, a wolf, and two goblins vs a party of five first level characters, the cleric dwarf, elf, wizard, archer fighter from the play test, and a rolled up dual wielding fighter and rolled up sword and board fighter. In short, some on both sides were surprised, but the bugbear did get it's suprise on the dwarf cleric and missed, even with advantage. Otherwise, he might have been instant killed but probably just knocked out. The two weapon fighter had suprise but also missed so, that round was kind of a wash (again, leaving out details to avoid spoilers).
The sleep spell was used early on and put two goblins to sleep. It was helpful but not an instant win button as the bugbear and wolf were challenging enough, every one in the party was unconsous by the end of the fight except for the dŵarf cleric. The bugbear was killed by the two weapon fighter before she went down by the wolf attack. The bugbear actually died pretty quick with everyone focus fireing on it, but it did knock out two players before going down. Things were very hairy towards the end, with the cleric running low on hp, standing alone against the wolf. All players stabilized on their own except for two, one was stabilized by the cleric with a medicine check, as was another after the fight was over. It was scary though, as those two players where 2 for 2 on saves, their up coming save was going to tell if there characters lived or died but, as I said, the cleric used medicine to save them before having to make that role.
The cleric dragged his friends behind a whole bunch of crates and stuff to hide for the several hours it would be before they woke up, and administered two potions of healing that were found in the room to get some extra support while waiting for the others.
As for party resources used, the cleric was out of spells and one fighter had used her second wind (the other fighter never had a chance). The wizard still has one spell for the day so after the short rest and arcane recovery he will have two spells again. I imagen everyone is going to spend their HD. We called it a night there (as I had rolled for a random encounter and thought I better think about what I will actually spring on them in the context of the adventure). I should note that the party faced four goblins, and then a later encounter of two wolves before facing the bugbear but with caution and planning those encounters were tackled with little to no resource drain on the party.
The fight was very exciting and nail biting (and quick paced as well) If a few roles went the other way it could have been a TPK (though, the adventure states that actually the goblins capture any unconscious characters, so the adventure would have continued). Or, if there had been less than five pcs it would have been much tougher. It should be noted that the CR of the fight was 1.75, indicating a challenging encounter. Furthermore, it was 350 xp,or 70 xp per player, placing it between moderate and challenging (a solid "moderate" encounter for a party of five 2nd level characters).
If the party had not faced two previous encounters the fight would have been a bit easier (one fighter only had 4 HPs going into this fight but everyone else 100 percent). A group that does this fight after already being drained of some spells and other resources might find it very challenging. On the other hand, if in the first round the two weapon fighter had managed to take out both goblins, the bugbear was hurt enough that the wizard would have put the wolf and bugbear to sleep, so it also could have wound up beinga very easy fight. In fact, if the wizard had been better protected from the bugbear, he could have casted his second sleep or magic missile and ended the fight much sooner. Also, the cleric was out of the fight for the first three rounds (reasons being omitted to avoid spoilers) making it a tougher fight in the beginning. But, no one died and it was a great time. I could see the fight going either way, and so players need to think outside the box, use caution, and try to get any advantage for an extra edge to overcome obstacles. Being cautious and finding solutions besides "charge and kill" let them defeat the first two encounters very easily. They attempted to be smart in the third fight but some bad rolls on stealth (and the ill advice to the hidden fighter to attack the goblins first instead of the bugbear), and failing to protect the Mage, and the cleric player being confused, thinking he had four castings per day instead of just two, led to a very tough and challenging fight. Overall, a memorable innugaratioon fir 5th Ed. (In other words, the new edition was well received by all players, and cought a lot of curious looks by the folks playing pathfinder in the other room, muwahahahah!).
The above doesn't sound like a CR1 appropriate encounter by the stated Dev standards.
-Polaris
Indeed. This makes it sound like 5E is going to suffer from some of the same issues previous editions did. Hit first, frontload damage, focus fire. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Polaris wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
moes1980 wrote:
It should be noted that the CR of the fight was 1.75, indicating a challenging encounter. Furthermore, it was 350 xp,or 70 xp per player, placing it between moderate and challenging
thespaceinvader wrote:
moes1980 wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
A tripod doesn't stand if one of the legs is wobbly.
Good post, Moes.
Hrm, bugbears have always been scary in my games. Players just have to be creative when dealing with scary monsters.
DM, playing Garmuuz the Bugbear: "Welcome to your worst nightmare, fools. Prepare to die! Muahaha!"
Felix, fearless paladin: "I charge in with my greatsword!"
Kravus, high elf mage: "Wait! Take cover and range them boys, and watch our flank! I have a plan..."
A paladin named "Felix" deserves whatever he's got coming to him.
iserith wrote:
Had an 8 hour session. Three people died. No bugbears were fought.
One person died to a hobgoblin. Another to a winter wolf.
A third to a trap.
If you are a wizard and you are getting melee attacked then the default is you should die. If you live that is the grace of the gods sparing your life. My assumption is that you die. At least at first level that is my assumption.
For those of you wanting less low level swingyness why not just start at 3rd level as advised. You also get extra stuff too so it makes it feel more like you are starting the way you did in 3e or 4e.
If you really need that #1 in front of your name then give yourself your third level hit points early.
If you argument is that new players hate dying then that is debatable. It probably comes down to gaming culture and expectations. I think first level is harrowing. I think that is fine. YMMV.
And I think the game should get harder as you level, not easier.
The_Jester wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
moes1980 wrote:
iserith wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
seti wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
moes1980 wrote:
When I was 13 I didn't have a TV in my room, access to a cell phone, game boy, computer, tablet, X-Box/Playstation, other RPGs, great board games (Pop-O-Matics were about the extent of game tech) all vying for my attention and time.
My cousin got Pong and I was the remote control for the TV.
Times have changed.
The mentor system also facilitates better/more growth
The_Jester wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
"Exploration" refers to both the adventurers moving about the world and their interaction with objects and situations. That covers a lot of ground that are also in games like FATE and other RPGs.
"Roleplaying" isn't a pillar. "Social Interaction" is which is also included in games like FATE and other RPGs.
iserith wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
@ SwampDog:
Draw three small circles on a piece of paper. Label one of the "Combat," another "Exploration," and the last one "Social Interaction."
Now draw a single big circle around all of three small circles and label it "Roleplaying."
Then maybe you will finally understand that roleplaying includes all of those things.
Edit: If that sounds unkind, I apologize, but I've had it up here with people not knowing what "roleplaying" means. It ain't just "talking" or "not combat."
moes1980 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
They just need to provide options for making characters more durable across all levels. There are those of us that don't want rocket tag. The chance of dying to a single lucky roll has no appeal to me.
Simply putting in optional dials would be enough for me. Starting at level 3 is not an acceptable solution, either. I'm already not thrilled about going back to 20 levels, never mind being told to give up another 10% of the game.
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
People are playing this game like it was a video game and then complaining that it behaves like a video game.
I'm seeing complaints about early combat, but I don't see people explaining why they were in these combat situations to begin with. If you play carefully and intelligently you tend not to end up in these quandries.
- Have the rogue way out ahead of the party (we like 100-200 yards) stealthily scouting. He should also carry a horn or some other loud signal in case he gets in over his head.
- Keep the fighter or cleric (usually cleric) next to the wizard so he can intercept melee attackers that try to move in on the wizard.
- Hire a local that knows the area to help you find your way around. One silver a day should be sufficient to happily employ a local huntsman or man-at-arms.
Don't just wander about waiting for the next combat encounter to pull you back into 'roll playing'. Interact with the world seriously and get smart about what you are doing.
Enjoy the modern mechanics of the game. But think like an old-schooler. The world is out to get you. Act accordingly and you won't be at its mercy!
Titanium_Dragon wrote:
autolycus wrote:
autolycus wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
JonWake wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
So, we've gone from a discussion on how lethal 1st level is to an edition-warring pissing contest.
This is why I stayed away from these fora for pretty much the last year.
SilentSin wrote:
Given how Phandelver continues the railroad tradition, what also continues is the people who are railroaded into combat, get hit by a random roll then say 'that's not fun!'. Yes, because you didn't choose whether you entered that combat, you were railroaded into it.
It's not not fun because it's random, it's not fun because you were forced into it.
Noon wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote: