Miniatures tactics vs. roleplaying teamwork

A comment on an earlier post (hi Keith!) got me thinking about tactics and teamwork and the difference in how 4E and 5E encourage that stuff.

I agree with his comment, and disagree. (I'm not going to paraphrase or quote him here. Sorry, but you'll have to follow the link and check the comments section because I don't want to risk misinterpreting him or taking his words out of context.)

I agree that 4E was really good in that group tactics and teamwork were an obvious point of emphasis. There were a myriad of powers that stuck enemies in place, gave allies free attacks and moves, and synergies galore. Heck, there was an entire class built around controlling the battlefield. Can't recall the name of it, despite the fact that one of the guys played one. I guess I always just thought of it as the "Middle Manager"; a class built around doing nothing but getting others to do all the work.

Anyways, it worked great in a tabletop miniatures combat simulation game. It was also where 4E fell on its collective face for me.

All of the move-here-hit-that powers ultimately shattered my immersion with the game.

Every time our Middle Manager would use a power to move my character, I would wince. More often than not, his directions made perfect tactical sense. And in the action movie playing in my head, I would envision him yelling something like "Dragonborn (my fighter character at the time)! Shift to your left and pin down that hobgoblin!" I would move my mini and in my head yell back "Yeah yeah. I've got him. Why don't you go book a meeting or something."

Immersion was more or less in place. But, I still ended up feeling like a pawn. And that was in the best case scenario when I agreed with the tactical plan.

Then there were the times when I had other plans or goals. I didn't want to stop and pin down a hobgoblin because my next round was going to get me closer to the pesky spellcaster at the back. I would refuse and my Dragonborn would shout out, "No! Have the dwarf do it!", but then we'd stop and have a debate around the table about tactics and goals. Much more would be said than what I could fit into six seconds of mental action movie.

Immersion destroyed.

So, I'm glad that 5E has toned that back to a couple of feats and stuff under the Fighter Battle Master archetype. I'm glad because I think that teamwork and tactics should never be enforced by a ruleset. They should evolve naturally during play.

Although I've been playing D&D with the same group of friends for over a dozen years, every time we start a new group of characters, there is always a learning curve. Part of is that 1st and 2nd level characters are always pretty inept. But there's also the need to learn how everyone envisions their character. We don't start out as a well oiled orc killing machine. We bump into each other. We get in the way of that shot or spell. Until we've gained a few levels and learned character tendencies.

It happens every time and it's a beautiful thing.

August is okay, I guess. Still thinking June was better.

I was going to hold off on a new post until after we had a chance to play a second session with the August rules packet. Given that we're doing that second session tomorrow night, I really should stick to the plan.

However, I got to chatting with Crwth about the August versus the June packets. While it's fresh in my head, I might as well hammer it out now.

I'll start with the way the August packet handles skills.... sorry, ability checks. Skills don't exist. Which is actually something I'm on board with. It's simple and intuitive and it should stop the I've-got-so-many-ranks-I-literally-cannot-fail-even-the-most-impossible-task problem.

The only downside to it is strictly a mental hurdle I have to make. As a player, I'm conditioned to ask for a Sense Motive check, for example. Instead, I need to be more specific in what my character wants to do or accomplish and let the DM (Crwth) call for whatever ability check he feels is appropriate. I imagine it might take a while for me to get to that point, but I'm pretty sure I'll eventually adjust my way of thinking.

On the upside, I'm very much in favor of the expertise die certain classes get when doing a task that's under their traditional purview (ie. Rogues and opening locks or picking pockets, Rangers and following tracks). I like the added bit of randomness. Sometimes your expertise helps a lot; other times, not at all. Crwth however, would prefer a set bonus. He's an idiot.

One last thing on skills/ability checks. I'm not sure about the Fields of Lore and how those are used. I guess they give a character a bit of background that has a mechanical impact. I'm just not sure on the bonus it gives. Maybe if they set it as an expertise die, I'd like it better.

So, all in all, I like the way ability checks nee skills are handled. I'm on the fence when it comes to feats.

I'm glad that feats are included in the August packet. The ones they've created are by and large, interesting and some are downright awesome. I'll even concede that the choice between +2 to an ability (or abilities) or a feat is a solid mechanic. As a player, I love being pushed to make a hard choice now and again.

My fence sitting stems from whether they are worth the wait; everyone gets an opportunity to pick up a feat by 4th level, and after that generally every three to six levels. For the Fighter or Rogue, dropping a +2 to stats might not be such a big deal when the next one is just three levels away. And what happens when you roll up a Rogue with really shitty stats? Are you gonna feel cheated when everyone else is picking up cool feats while you're just struggling to bring up your Int and Wis scores?

Finally, the one thing I'm sure I don't like in the August packet is the Circles or Paths the classes get at 3rd level.

For starters, the whole concept makes my skin crawl. Sure, my character concept might start out with one path being a perfect fit. But what usually happens is that the character tends to take on a life of his own after a while. As soon as that starts to happen, the Path becomes more of a Hallway with no doors or windows. Unless the designers at WotC crank out a hundred paths/circles per class, it's a lousy thing to include.

The other issue I have is that it starts at 3rd level. The only use I'd have for Paths/Circles is as a background enhancer; much like the Lore rules.

My current character is a Fighter. I pictured him as a grizzled Clint Eastwood type, a former slave and gladiator who just wants a nice quiet life in a picturesque little hamlet but is grudgingly forced to strap on his armor and sword. The Path of the Gladiator seemed like a perfect fit. But... I can't take it until he's 3rd level.

Well, you can still have it set as the Path you'll take at 3rd and use it as a part of the character concept and background. True. But, for two levels I have to suspend disbelief and try to ignore the fact that all those tricks he learned in the arena are forgotten. Then at 3rd level he suddenly remembers them? WTF? Way to ruin the escapism WotC.

Let me choose a Path at 1st level, then space out the bonuses and tricks over the ensuing levels. I'd be okay with that. Also give me a chance to depart from the Path at later levels.

I guess what I'm saying is.... keep your Paths and Circles. Give me the feats system from the June packet.

Two Months Too Late

While reading the August playtest packet, my recurring thought was, 'we should just play the previous June packet'.

At the end of our first session Saturday night, my first thought was 'I wish we had played the June packet'.

Not that the current August packet is bad or dull or anything. We didn't get a chance to test the rules on spellcasting, and our one combat involved only grappling and one swing of a club. That said...

The grappling rules as written leave a lot to be desired. Maybe we were simply looking for more hard and fast rules, and given our 3.5 leanings where everything bit of minutae has a rule, that might have been our fault. My fighter got a grip on the guy (ie. successfully started a grapple) but after that, we were at a bit of a loss on what could or couldn't be done. It got worse when another character piled on.

Does the bad guy have to break one grapple at a time? Or one roll by the bad guy versus my character with advantage thanks to the second character helping? One roll by the bad guy to break both grapples at once?

Then there was the issue of what to do after successfully starting a grapple. I wasn't sure what exactly restraining the bad guy meant. Restraining versus knocking him prone? We ended up consulting the definitions of Conditions, but there was still a lot of perceived vagueness.

Again, that might be more of us looking for hard and fast 3.5-like rules on grappling. So, as we play more, it might not be a real gripe.

One gripe I don't see going away however, is the lack of skills. I can see the benefits in reducing everything to an ability check. I understand the classically skillsy classes (rogue, ranger, bard) get "Expertise" dice to help anytime they try something Dexterity or Wisdom (or both) based.

The problem I have is how open ended it is. If a rogue is picking a lock or stealing a few coins, and therefore rolling a Dex check, clearly his expertise die becomes a valid add on. A ranger following some tracks should get his expertise die to add to his Wisdom check. But when either one wants to vault onto a horse, or another Dexterity based thing that's outside the realm of rogueing or rangering, they get to add their expertise to it? Just because the check calls for Dexterity?

I'm on the fence when it comes to Feats. At first glance, I thought that giving up the +2 Stat increase (or two +1 increases to two different Stats, as WotC painstakingly explained as though talking to an inattentive five year old), was a heavy price to pay. Then I saw the meager four page PDF for Feats and was outright disappointed. But then I read some of what each Feat provides and saw that they tend to give some pretty serious perks. Enough so that I'm going to have a hard decision to make when the time comes.

Speaking of which, our next level cannot come soon enough. First level was never very glamorous but the August packet seemed to make it the dreariest level possible.

Case in point. Our party has two fighters; my human and a dwarf. Other than the race and names, there's nothing that differentiates them from one another. It's not until 3rd level where the circles kick in and where I'd expect to see some separation. Except is sounds like we're both going the Gladiator path. Hmmm... maybe at 4th level if I go for a Feat?

All in all, I'm still pretty revved up by the direction 5E is going. WotC is clearly thinking of ways to break D&D out of the box and trying new things. Good on 'em! But if the June and August packets are the fork in the road, then I'm hoping they lean to the June direction (probably because it has a more 3.5 feel, where August felt distinctly 4E to me).

Coming back to the Next

It's been a while. A little over a year in fact, since the last time I had something to say about DnDNext (or "5E" if you prefer).

The reason for the absence? Boredom would be the honest answer. Our group did what we could with the materials WoTC released, and that lasted a couple of weeks before we got bored. We ended up going back to Pathfinder, then we all got busy. For the last six months we've played more boardgames than D&D of any flavor.

We're now looking to change that and return to D&D, and 5E in particular. There's certainly much more material to work with in the playtesting packet. Good to see that the guys and girls at WoTC haven't been as idle as us.

In prepping for Crwth's next campaign, I've read through what I could (as a player, so I can't speak on the Beastiary or DM's Guide) and I'm left feeling pretty optimistic.

1. Advantage/Disadvantage - really liking where this is going.

2. The spending of "hit dice" during short/long rests - I'm on the fence. I guess it reduces or outright removes the old need for a cleric.

3. Feats and skills - Big fan of feats from 3E, so I'm glad to see them back. I really like the new skills implementation of adding a d6 to a stat check. Hopefully it solves the impossible-to-fail-no-matter-what-I-roll-because-I-have-a-gajillion-ranks problem.

4. The Ranger - no more of the "fighter with a bow" cliche. They've come right out and stressed that first and foremost, the ranger is a hunter.

That's just the three things off the top of my head. There are also a bunch of the class features that I really liked, and the weapons and armor changes are mostly good. For the latter, I particularly like that you are at a disadvantage when using a weapon or armor that you're not proficient with. That said, a part of me will always miss the days of the arcane failure check.

Now if they'd just bring out the sorcerer class...

Some first impressions on the playtest stuff

Funny thing, how life gets hectic and things that held my interest end up pushed to the back burner. DnDNext was that thing and one day I couldn't read enough about it, and the next it wasn't even on my radar.

Then, along comes the playtest materials.

Yes, our group got in. No, I don't think it's all that exclusive of a thing.(My impression is that anyone who asked to be in, got in.)

Anyways, I read the guide on how to play and skimmed over the supplied characters. Not a lot of meat but the bones are shiny and white and new.

The materials do give a pretty good sense of where 5th Edition is going, and I think I'm gonna like it. DM Samuel at RPGMusings wrote up a really good summary with some good insights. I'll try not to simply rehash what he wrote but a tip of the hat to his spotting of the three pillars of 5th Edition.

Unfortunately, our group's first official playtest won't happen until this Saturday (June 2nd) but I thought I'd throw out my initial thoughts on the good, bad, and ugly.

Right off the bat, I really dig the concept of Advantage/Disadvantage. It's simple but a powerful tool and full of tactical goodness. This guy here breaks down the math quite nicely.

I'm also a big fan of the simplification of checks being made against each stat. As much as I might miss the old Will, Reflex and whatever that third save was, it only makes sense to treat them as ability tests instead. Plus, as an added bonus, it makes all six stats important in different situations. Charisma might not be the default dump stat any more.

The idea of Backgrounds and Themes for characters also seems like a welcome innovation. I'm a little worried that having feats embedded inside is a recipe for disaster. I, for one, create a character with one concept and very often end up playing him/her/it as something totally different. In 3rd Edition, that wasn't much of a problem as I'd just change up my feat selections and/or spell choices. If a background in 5th Edition gives you two or three feat trees to chose from, at best I'm going to feel restricted. At the worst, I'll end up stuck with a character I don't like.

I'm a little put off by the Cantrips and Orisons. They seem to take those iconic 1st level spells like Magic Missile and turn them into the dreaded At-Will powers of 4th Edition. After reading everything else and seeing not even a nod towards the-edition-that-shall-not-be-named, they drop the At-will thing on me. Ugh!

I'm hoping the feedback on that will get them to come up with something else. While I agree that there's no harm in the wizard/sorcerer/cleric/bard/etc... having a couple of piddly spells that they can fire off as many times as they want. The Light spell is a great example of something that's nice to have limitless uses of, but being able to machine gun Magic Missiles is a bit much.

Am I really in that small of a minority that I don't mind my spellcaster having to resort to swinging a sword or shooting a crossbow when he's out of spells?

On another note, Crwth spotted an interesting bit of wording in the How To Play guide. In the Stealth section, it seems to imply that one roll is made and that all contested rolls are compared against it.

He interprets that as the player announcing he wants to be sneaky, rolling a Dex check, and then using that roll for the rest of the week as he creeps across the country. I, uh, might be exaggerating that a little bit.

Still, even if it means that a character can creep along a 100' of hallway past multiple guards on one roll, that needs to be dropped. I know. Rolling a stealth check every 15' is tedious. And a lot of the time the DM knows there's nothing there to hear/spot the character but the DM can't let the player know that, so the dice clatter away for the next hour.

Doing it on one stealth check is not the answer. Sure, it speeds up play. Sure, it simplifies the task. But it's a cure looking for a disease. There's tension inherent in every die roll (or there should be) because there is a risk of failure. Rolling a lot of dice is not necessarily a bad thing. Especially not when checks seem to be simplified down to an Ability score plus a modifier or two plus Advantage or Disadvantage.

Crwth's nightmare example was of a player rolling a natural 20 and deciding that his character will simply stealthy move all the way through the dungeon unopposed. Or, he'll roll a 5 and decide to stop moving before trying again.

I can see doing that. I can't see getting away with it, but...

Then I read that section again, and I think the wording suggests that when trying to sneak past a bunch of guards/monsters, the player rolls a single stealth check instead of a check against each guard/monster.

Hopefully, it's just a case of poor wording that will be clarified sooner or later.

The Future of Fighters

Forgive me the next handful of posts, as I catch up to news almost a month old.

Over on the D&D Next blog, Evil_Reverend had a poll asking about players' opinion about the role of the fighter in D&D, whether they should be the preeminent melee fighter, or if mastery of ranged weapons also fell within their purview; if they should be openly versatile in their style and methods, or if they should be restricted to a defined purpose.

We've opined before about the 4e way of doing things, I think the 4e fighter would have only gotten one try from me, just to say that I had. To me, the fighter has been, over years, quite frankly, boring. Boring for the very reasons that Evil_Reverend lists: "generic warrior", "reliance on weapons and armor", "particular niche".

However, the 3rd edition fighter had me break out of my anti-fighter shell, a few times in fact. And that's because of the feat structure of 3rd edition. I could be the heavy-plated tank that waded into battle, fearless. I could be the nimble, tumbling, quickstriking dervish, quick like a rogue but trading thieves' tools for a little more skill in combat. I could be the specialist fighter, tripping and disarming without penalty, effortlessly, from a distance. I could be that sniper in the back of the pack, nowhere near as comfortable in nature as the ranger, but good and ready to take the fight up close if, against all odds, my foes could get close enough.

And I did. I played all of these fighters, and they were completely different characters to me. This is why I liked the tone that Evil_Reverend had in his post, that he liked the versatility of 3rd edition, of the feats. He also argues for the "identity" of the fighter, that, I admit, was a bit lost in 3rd edition if you didn't play stereotypically. I just hope the attempts to accommodate the identity doesn't prevent me from completely abandoning it if I choose.

You can guess how I voted in the poll.