D&D 5E Whats your dealbreaker for 5E?

[FickleGM]

LOL. Barn owl, or screech owl?

Probably a screech owl, since my sarcasm and anti-D&D comments seem to occasionally be annoying.

 

[Starfox]

Man, that's a hard one... my first thought would be that it is like porn: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. A few things stand out, however:

-Magic items are rare and dangerous, and not available commercially.
-Very much a medieval feel, not steampunk or magic as technology.
-Swords and sorcery meets Tolkein, not shardmind wyverntouched anti-palaladins.
-Relatively simple PCs and monster statblocks.
-Emphasis on DM fiat, and not encyclopedic rulesets. I love the reliance on ability checks with vaguely defined DCs, for example.

I guess to me it is as much what it isn't, if that makes any sense.

Are these your dealbreakers, or did I miss a "requirements" somewhere in there?

 

[Greg K]

Are these your dealbreakers, or did I miss a "requirements" somewhere in there?

He was responding to my post asking if he could be more specific about what feels like AD&D to him.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Right the monsters had recharge powers, but most of the time they recharge on a 5 & 6 or just a 6. So, a 1 in 3 chance or 1 in 6 chance of recharge. And, since I had a big group, I would put a solo on the board, as well as an elite or two and a few others.

But, for the final encounter, I used a modified version of Baba Yaga. Level 27 Solo Controller with 984 hit points.
Round 1: Vile Transmutation as Standard Action, Sweep the Field as a Move, Evil Eye as a Minor... Action Point to use Crushing Grasp (recharges Vile Transmutation)
Round 2: Roll to recharge Crushing Grasp (no) Vile Transmutation as Standard, Sweep the Field as a Move, Evil Eye as a Minor, Action Point to use Broomstick (recharges Vile Transmutation)

(remember, at this point, most of the PCs have something that grants them additional or bonus saves, or they can grant allies a bonus save...)
Round 3: roll to recharge Crushing Grasp (no) Vile Transmutation as Standard, Sweep the Field as a Move, Evil Eye as a Minor...
Round 4: roll to recharge Crushing Grasp (yes), which she uses as a standard, Sweep the Field as a Move, Evil Eye as a Minor...

And, then for the next umpteen rounds, I was doing that same process over & over again. Because of her aura, several PCs stayed outside the range for Evil Eye, Vile Transmutation, Crushing Grasp, etc. When the PCs finally bloodied her after like 10 rounds, I declared the battle over since all the PCs were basically at full hit points, just down action points and most of their dailies from taking out the elites and others, and now the archer ranger could turn his attention to her. (the main damage dealers in the party were occupied by the elites, while the lockdown defender kept being subjected to the Vile Transmutation and being turned into a toad.)

Spotted your other thread, and it looked like a fairly defensive party vs a higher level solo controller and some elites. So, a defensive party (taking 10 rounds to kill a couple of elites) vs defensive monsters (not being able to kill the party in 10 rounds) which ended up being a slugfeast. I can see what you didn't like.

I haven't actually ran 4e higher than level 8-9, but I had already started using monsters with higher damage output in favour of control/defense. In other words, to have quick(er) encounters, you have to build for damage, not defense. Using monsters with the Artillery/Skirmisher role is one way to do it. Not using higher level monsters is another (PC's miss too much). It's probably very party dependant what sort of encounter that actually works well, so giving advice would be party dependant. For your party, the advice above would probably have worked very well.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Spotted your other thread, and it looked like a fairly defensive party vs a higher level solo controller and some elites. So, a defensive party (taking 10 rounds to kill a couple of elites) vs defensive monsters (not being able to kill the party in 10 rounds) which ended up being a slugfeast. I can see what you didn't like.

I haven't actually ran 4e higher than level 8-9, but I had already started using monsters with higher damage output in favour of control/defense. In other words, to have quick(er) encounters, you have to build for damage, not defense. Using monsters with the Artillery/Skirmisher role is one way to do it. Not using higher level monsters is another (PC's miss too much). It's probably very party dependant what sort of encounter that actually works well, so giving advice would be party dependant. For your party, the advice above would probably have worked very well.

Actually, I'd say they were a pretty offensive minded party - they had a melee striker and a ranged striker, as well as a hybrid barbarian/warlord for offense/defense, as well as a wizard Controller, shaman as leader and fighter defender. Part of the problem was that both sides had so many interrupts or powers that would limit actions of others (daze, stun, weaken, etc) that even if the rogue scored a critical, he was weakened and did half damage, or the barbarian guy kept getting dazed, so could only take one action/round, etc, etc.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Actually, I'd say they were a pretty offensive minded party - they had a melee striker and a ranged striker, as well as a hybrid barbarian/warlord for offense/defense, as well as a wizard Controller, shaman as leader and fighter defender. Part of the problem was that both sides had so many interrupts or powers that would limit actions of others (daze, stun, weaken, etc) that even if the rogue scored a critical, he was weakened and did half damage, or the barbarian guy kept getting dazed, so could only take one action/round, etc, etc.

Looks like they have managed to cut down considerably on that in 5e. It's more like 3.5e, with more pure damage powers. The logic behind adding more debilitating conditions at higher levels in 4e is in my eyes a design flaw.

As a player, I just went with offensive powers for my current Wizard PC. Instead of playing a "Controller", I am playing a slightly less optimal "Blaster". The bonus for me is that the character shorten fights. As a DM, I do much of the same, as mentioned above.

Btw, 1.5 defenders, a controller, a leader and 2.5 strikers isn't very offensive, especially if the controller actually is setup like a controller, not a blaster. An offensive party of 6 would have a leader with focus on buffing attacks and removing conditions, a controller that's focused on damage, three strikers and a defender.

 

[EvilDwarf]

I've been more than hyped since the announcement and fell in love with packet 1. Since then, it's sort of been downhill. I'm pretty much open, and will buy just because it's D&D--but will my group play it? We're actually really digging 13th Age and Numenera right now.

But, I do have ONE deal breaker that would just make me put it down and walk away, like I did with 3 and 3.5 and more recently Pathfinder:

System Mastery

They absolutely must build me a game that allows quick and easy options, matched as closely as possible to the character concept I'd like to have (no way for the perfect match, but Backgrounds, etc. go a long way) without sub-optimal choices.

IMO, system complexity increases the likelihood of required system mastery. Lots of choices doesn't necessarily increase this likelihood. We can build an encounter table that allows us to build monsters from scratch that are X level in power--so I'm not seeing the mystery of doing the same with classes.

Design tip: build a solid core mechanic and, um, build on it. Do away with the idea that as you add options you need fiddly little sub-systems. Example: Advantage/Disadvantage. You can get a heck of a lot of mileage out of the simple little concept--have classes use this concept in different ways and circumstances and bingo! you're there. Takes care of fiddly bits like Saves, Extra Attacks, Skills bonuses, Racial Bonuses, Feats, Action Points, Reactions in Combat, Effects and Conditions, etc. Heck, maybe I'll invent a d20 system and call it d20 Advantage lol.

I'm also going to suggest the concept of Bounded Choices--options that let you reasonably customize that are all good choices. I am a role player whose group includes several big roll players. Our choices have to add fun things our characters can do but that don't make or break our characters.


So, System Mastery = Walking Away

 

[Herschel]

Actually, I'd say they were a pretty offensive minded party - they had a melee striker and a ranged striker, as well as a hybrid barbarian/warlord for offense/defense, as well as a wizard Controller, shaman as leader and fighter defender. Part of the problem was that both sides had so many interrupts or powers that would limit actions of others (daze, stun, weaken, etc) that even if the rogue scored a critical, he was weakened and did half damage, or the barbarian guy kept getting dazed, so could only take one action/round, etc, etc.

If the party is well-built, Daze and Stun aren't much of an issue. That tells me the party wasn't put together very well. Any Barbarian who is not intentionally designed poorly really shouldn't care one lick if he's Dazed, especially if he's around an even half-way decent defender.

Just because it says striker on the tin doesn't mean they're good at that job. I can build a Warlock who is actually a solid controller with decent damage fairly easily, for example, but his damage output is not what you'd call striker-level. You can easily build a Fighter who out-damages him. There's a lot of flexibility in most of the classes.

Weaken is something I only use very rarely. I've found the players in all the groups I've been around hate it more than any other status and I've come to agree with them.

 

[NewJeffCT]

If the party is well-built, Daze and Stun aren't much of an issue. That tells me the party wasn't put together very well. Any Barbarian who is not intentionally designed poorly really shouldn't care one lick if he's Dazed, especially if he's around an even half-way decent defender.

Just because it says striker on the tin doesn't mean they're good at that job. I can build a Warlock who is actually a solid controller with decent damage fairly easily, for example, but his damage output is not what you'd call striker-level. You can easily build a Fighter who out-damages him. There's a lot of flexibility in most of the classes.

Weaken is something I only use very rarely. I've found the players in all the groups I've been around hate it more than any other status and I've come to agree with them.

Actually, I thought the guys playing strikers were the most effective characters in the group. Perhaps that is why I thought it was an offensive minded party? Plus, while the wizard was a Controller, he was also fairly offensive minded. The guy playing the shaman leader was a good player, but sometimes had spotty attendance and was indifferent (at best) towards 4e, so somebody else would run his PC if he was gone, so that might have contributed as well.

The kid playing the archer ranger also had uncanny luck rolling "to hit", while his father, playing the fighter defender, was the opposite: Twice during the campaign, the ranger was blinded and still attacked and rolled natural 20s. His father could have three attacks that need only a five or better to hit and he'd miss all three, or he'd miss two out of three on a good day. If it were a one time thing, I'd have laughed it off, but it continued for the duration of the two year long campaign with only rare exceptions. And, the exceptions were the fighter having the occasional good day. The kid playing the ranger never really had a "bad" day, just good days and great days, with only an occasional so-so day.

 

[Mercurius]

My deal-breaker is if its not Real D&D.