Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?

[Previn]

Magic items from LMoP:

• +1 armor, increases AC by 1
• +1 weapon, +1 to hit and damage
• Gauntlets of Ogre Str, changes your str to 19 if it was lower than that.
• Spider Staff - Webs and spider climbs, but recharges a d6+4 of it's 10 charges each day. If you use the last charge in a day, roll a d20, on a 1 it crumbles to dust.
• Wand of Magic Missile. Same recharge mechanic as the staff. You can expend 1-3 charges at a time.
• Staff of Defense increases AC by 1, casts mage armor and shield
• Ring of Protection +1, +1 to all saves

Misc potions. Healing for 2d4+2 HP, fly for 1 hour, invisibility for 1 hour or you attack or cast a spell.

[codeGlaze]

I like the vibe those Trapdoor Tech guys have.
Even if 5e sucks... maybe they can go on to help PF or some other RPG be awesome on the tech front.

[Cyberzombie]

4 Hobgoblins will rip a 1st level party in half. Their two dice of bonus flanking damage is intense.

I wouldn't say they'd rip them in half. It'd be a close fight where people are likely to die, but it wouldn't be an auto-win for the hobgoblins. I'm really not even sure if the hobs are even favored there. The main problem hobgoblins have is that they're not very accurate. So against your average fighter type with 18 AC, the hobgoblin misses most of the time, despite having a ton of damage.

And should the casters get any spells off, it's pretty easy to drop some hobs early. Cleric casts command and wizard drops sleep, the PCs win. Even burning hands is likely to do some serious damage.

Even a party of all fighters has a chance if they've got that defender ability that can grant disadvantage on attacks against an ally. Handing the hobs disadvantage basically gives them a virtual auto-miss. Obviously I'd rather have the casters than the warriors, but this is D&D and that's nothing new.

I'd put the encounter in the risky, but winnable category.

[Previn]

The main problem hobgoblins have is that they're not very accurate. So against your average fighter type with 18 AC, the hobgoblin misses most of the time, despite having a ton of damage.

While true, there also isn't much incentive to attack the fighter for the hobgoblins, while there is a lot more incentive to pop off the casters or the rogue as it's noticeable easier. It's very similar to the problem of previous fighters where you just don't care about them.

Even a party of all fighters has a chance if they've got that defender ability that can grant disadvantage on attacks against an ally. Handing the hobs disadvantage basically gives them a virtual auto-miss. Obviously I'd rather have the casters than the warriors, but this is D&D and that's nothing new.

While the fighter's protection style is neat, the hobgoblins will be more than happy to stay back and pelt with bows, and it requires the use of a shield. I don't want to say it's a trap option... but it looks like a trap option. Out of the fighting styles, it's pretty clearly the weakest being very reliant on the situation (and party) to see any use while every other one is effectively always on.

[fectin]

I like the vibe those Trapdoor Tech guys have.
Even if 5e sucks... maybe they can go on to help PF or some other RPG be awesome on the tech front.

If they succeed wildly, do you think they'll go back and hit old editions?

[Cyberzombie]

While the fighter's protection style is neat, the hobgoblins will be more than happy to stay back and pelt with bows, and it requires the use of a shield. I don't want to say it's a trap option... but it looks like a trap option. Out of the fighting styles, it's pretty clearly the weakest being very reliant on the situation (and party) to see any use while every other one is effectively always on.

Yeah, like I said, I'd only really use protection if the group had multiple fighters in it. A shield wall of 2-3 fighters could be a pretty strong defense. If you're the typical standard party, then protection is generally not a good idea. You only want to do it if you're running a melee heavy group.

As for hobgoblin archery, it's not a huge deal because they require people in melee to get their big damage boost and a lone melee hobgoblin will be pretty squishy anyway. Without their sneak attack, they're inferior to a PC archer in every way.

Now if you paired some kind of tanky monster like an ogre with hobgoblin archers, then you'd run into trouble, but I don't think 4 hobs would prove to be an winnable battle.

[Voss]

While the fighter's protection style is neat, the hobgoblins will be more than happy to stay back and pelt with bows, and it requires the use of a shield. I don't want to say it's a trap option... but it looks like a trap option. Out of the fighting styles, it's pretty clearly the weakest being very reliant on the situation (and party) to see any use while every other one is effectively always on.

It notably got a massive nerfbat from the final playtest, where it could inflict disadvantage against attacks aimed at the fighter as well (no 'other than you' clause), which encouraged the fighter to be in the thick of things with relative impunity.

Current version, though... definitely not as impressed. I'd take +1 AC for a sword/board fighter (which I think is fairly viable simply because it shoves the fighter into a very comfortable part of the RNG). Otherwise I think the choice is archery or great weapon. TWF, maybe, but dueling is inferior to just having a greatsword or maul, and that is before any of the other style abilities kick in.


@Cyber- the trouble with the first level hobbo fight is that its damn swingy. Not every fight is going to end in a TPK, but any time they do hit (if they're being run correctly, i.e. paired or with a sacrificial brother) they're going to drop someone, almost guaranteed (actually entirely guaranteed if the DM uses the recommended averages, and no one is a con 16 fighter).

If 2 of 4 attacks come up 15+ (or 12+ on rogues/wizards), thats half the party down. Granted there is a lot the party can do to drop multiple hobgoblins in round 1 as well, But I'd say about every fifth hobgoblin fight run at first level has the potential to turn into a complete fucking disaster. Maybe more, depending on how many of those are new players or people not expecting the raw damage output of fucking every day enemy guards. The RNG is just too ridiculous, and there is simply no reason to create 1st level mooks that can viably one shot almost anyone in the party in a single attack.

[Previn]

I suspect that the reason that they shuffle you into 3rd level so fast is exactly because of this. Going from 1st to 2nd level is maybe 8 encounters (1 encounter is a lone goblin guard) in the starter adventure. The players will kill maybe 20ish things total divided up into small groups in that time, less if they sneak or parlay.

I think we've talked about the wonky XP table for advancement before which this reinforces. I would have much rather have longer fights at low level that got more lethal as you advanced, especially from the point of getting new players and GMs into the game and learning the basics.

[Covent]

OK,

I have to after looking more into 5th admit I was wrong on pretty much all counts.

The only really coherent and even partly factual numbers in my original post were the level one DPR numbers and the HP totals.

Everything else is pretty much garbage for reasons Frank explained well.

I can only say I had jumped to the spells section, I admit I liked the fact that spells scaled and then jumped up to fighter.

Previn you were right I needed a more in depth look, however you were still a dick.

I am sorry I responded in the way I did to you however, I am just tired of Pathfinder/3.5/4th apologists and took it out on you. You come across as arrogant and patronizing which is what I sometimes rage against in the fanbois.

I will come back to this after the PHB comes out and I can comment with some more reason and data rather than my first knee jerk response.

In short: Ignore all of my "Baboon Math" and move along. I will attempt to stop sucking a barrel full of cocks.

[Cyberzombie]

If 2 of 4 attacks come up 15+ (or 12+ on rogues/wizards), thats half the party down. Granted there is a lot the party can do to drop multiple hobgoblins in round 1 as well, But I'd say about every fifth hobgoblin fight run at first level has the potential to turn into a complete fucking disaster. Maybe more, depending on how many of those are new players or people not expecting the raw damage output of fucking every day enemy guards. The RNG is just too ridiculous, and there is simply no reason to create 1st level mooks that can viably one shot almost anyone in the party in a single attack.

Well I suppose my main issue is that I don't see a hobgoblin as just a 1st level mook, I see them pretty much as something that should be on par with a 1st level character. Hobgoblins are well-trained and organized, and I don't see an issue with them being dangerous to low level characters.

As far as one shots, I don't really see a big issue with that either. Pretty much every single one of the wizard's offensive spells has 1 shot potential, and with a greater chance than any of the hobgoblin's attacks. I actually feel like we need more melee one-shots rather than less. Physical attacks should be threatening, just like spells are.

[Voss]

If 2 of 4 attacks come up 15+ (or 12+ on rogues/wizards), thats half the party down. Granted there is a lot the party can do to drop multiple hobgoblins in round 1 as well, But I'd say about every fifth hobgoblin fight run at first level has the potential to turn into a complete fucking disaster. Maybe more, depending on how many of those are new players or people not expecting the raw damage output of fucking every day enemy guards. The RNG is just too ridiculous, and there is simply no reason to create 1st level mooks that can viably one shot almost anyone in the party in a single attack.

Well I suppose my main issue is that I don't see a hobgoblin as just a 1st level mook, I see them pretty much as something that should be on par with a 1st level character. Hobgoblins are well-trained and organized, and I don't see an issue with them being dangerous to low level characters.

Well, unsurprisingly, you're wrong. Hobgoblins have always been mooks, slightly stronger than goblins, but effectively a tidier orc. And dangerous is not the same as 'threaten TPK'.

As far as one shots, I don't really see a big issue with that either. Pretty much every single one of the wizard's offensive spells has 1 shot potential, and with a greater chance than any of the hobgoblin's attacks. I actually feel like we need more melee one-shots rather than less. Physical attacks should be threatening, just like spells are.

Yeah, great. So you don't even understand the game. Shit monsters one-shitting (ah, the joys of autocorrect. I'm keeping that) PCs automatically is bad for the game, especially when its happening round 1 to potentially multiple players because some damn mook is _standing next to them_ and the attack dice happen to come up high. It is 'go directly to the playstation' at the early stages of the game, with a solid chance of total failure as people are learning the game/campaign/characters.

Comparing it to sleep is stupid, because it obviously isn't a limited resource level appropriate ability, because they are quite easily throwing the auto-one-hit on every attack on every round. Each one, every time. Thats fucking insane. (And for the record, sleep would also be a terribad thing to throw at a first level party, because it would get 2-3 of them, with no chance to resist). It is very important to understand that the PCs are expected to face several groups of monsters over the course of the day. Each group of monsters is only expected to face the party once. So unlimited one-shots are completely unreasonable in a game about resource management.


-----------------------------
On another subejct, I decided to fuck around with point buy, to see how character creation shakes out. It is... even more fucking terrible than I thought. Optimizing around the 'you can only buy a 15' makes for a fucking limited set of characters. As in, you should play a human, a high elf wizard, a stout halfling rogue, a mountain dwarf fighter, or a hill dwarf cleric. And the human is actually suboptimal, since you get slightly higher stats in ability scores those classes give no shits about in exchange for a long list of racial abilities.

Seriously this is insane. Here is how it shakes out, (and you can shift some 8s in for higher bonuses to other stats you don't care about, but seriously whatever. Wisdom matters because perception, everything else is attacks/spells, defense or HP.... or nothing).
The wizard build is:
Str 10
Dex 16
Con 14
Int 16
Wis 10
Cha 11 (or 8 for the high elf). But the high elf gets all the elf abilities, and the human gets +0 instead of -1 on charisma checks.
In exchange for that -1, the elf gets shortsword (finesse weapon), longbow,
bonus cantrip, extra language, dark vision, advantage vs charm, immunity to sleep, and trance (4 hours sleep)

Rogue is
Str 11 (10 for halfling, +0 either way)
Dex 16
Con 16
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 10 (8 for halfling, 0 vs -1 again)
so -1 for advantage vs poison, resistance vs poison, advantage vs fear, move through larger critters and reroll 1s. and a negative: -5 movement (which does matter a bit, but less than you'd think given the rogue free movement ability at level 2).

Fighter is extra stupid, since mountain dwarves get +2 str and +2 con
Str 16
Dex 12
Con 16
Int 10
Wis 14
Charisma 9 (or 8 for the dwarf)
so literally zero difference in stat modifiers in exchange for advantage & resistance vs poison, tool proficiency and stonecutting. (and -5 movement)
The rest of the dwarf traits don't matter, since they get them all already as fighter proficiencies or (in the case of armor penalty negation, by virtue of strength)

Cleric is another fuck you moment, largely because the cleric wants to be a little MAD at later levels and actually make melee attacks (and wear heavy armor, which the life cleric can.
So
Str 15 (14 for hill dwarf)
Dex 10
Con 16
Int 10
Wis 16
Cha 9 (8 for dwarf)
Now, that strength 15 is just there to ignore the movement penalty for the good heavy armors, but dwarves get that inherently, so its just there for melee attacks (cantrips do for ranged attacks). So this also +0 stat modifiers in exchange for tools, poison resilience, stonecutting, and most importantly, bonus HPs.

(there might also be room for dex cleric builds, particularly for domains that don't get heavy armor inherently. But seriously, just swap dex and str or maybe even con. But particularly at low levels, particularly with the cap on starting attributes, heavy armor is just better: Max AC 15 vs Max 17 (or 18 once you get 1500 gp). And if you prioritize raising dex over raising your spell casting ability, you are a fucking moron. Buff spells have been nerfed too hard, particularly with concentration giving you a chance to lose the spell with every hit (and no way to boost that Con save to match the DC set by incoming damage, though admittedly is doesn't matter if the damage is 20 or less).

The variant human might be interesting, by the by, depending on what feats are, but they take significant stat penalties (-2 Str, -3 Cha for the wizard, -1 Wis, -2 Cha for the rogue, -2 dex, -1 wis and cha for the fighter, -1 str, -2 dex and -1 cha for the cleric) for the proficiency bonus to one skill and a feat, which are ??? at this stage.

The big thing is, however, there is zero reason to build anything other than these class/race combinations (wood elf rogues or clerics might work), with the exception of dex fighters, which are a bit of an oddity (since halflings can't use longbows, and they would be the default dex/con option. Taking shortbows straight up means less damage)
Str 12 (10 for wood elf)
Dex 16 (17 for wood elf
Con 16 (15 for wood elf)
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 9 (8 for wood elf)
wood elf abilities and such- bonus movement, dark vision, hiding in bushes
This has the biggest divergence, but keep in mind it goes away at 4th level with the first stat increase. Its simple +1 dex/+1con instead of +2 to one stat, and the con difference forever goes away.


So there you have it, the 5 builds for the four base classes in D&D. Fuck you, Mearls.

[Cyberzombie]

Well, unsurprisingly, you're wrong. Hobgoblins have always been mooks, slightly stronger than goblins, but effectively a tidier orc. And dangerous is not the same as 'threaten TPK'.

I don't think it's particularly possible to be "wrong" when it comes to how powerful you think level 1 PCs should be, which is totally arbitrary. In 2E, hobgoblins were tougher than orcs, and had better THACO than even a level warrior. Yes, a PC with 18 strength was better numerically but you're hardly talking about something designed as a total pushover.

One hobgoblin versus a level 1 PC fighter did threaten a TPK. It was the same way in red box too.

Now obviously you may think that 1st level PCs should be more badass than basic monsters, but that's all a playstyle preference. And given D&DN is based off a lot of OSR principles, you can expect that the power curve is going to resemble OSR. That's not really a bad thing, since people who don't want that can always start 3rd level, as they always have.

Shit monsters one-shitting (ah, the joys of autocorrect. I'm keeping that) PCs automatically is bad for the game, especially when its happening round 1 to potentially multiple players because some damn mook is _standing next to them_ and the attack dice happen to come up high. It is 'go directly to the playstation' at the early stages of the game, with a solid chance of total failure as people are learning the game/campaign/characters.

I'll take that over 4E's grind any day. Keep the battles quick and if someone gets eliminated, whatever you sit out for 5-10 minutes for the fight to conclude, and then you're back and that assumes nobody uses combat healing on you. I just never want to see a return of 4E's godawfully long battles where both sides grind each other down, because people are afraid of one roll meaning too much.

If people want to remove combat healing from the game I could understand making PCs tougher, but whatever. Combat healing is in the game and if someone drops you with a sword, the cleric just casts cure light wounds and you're back.

Comparing it to sleep is stupid, because it obviously isn't a limited resource level appropriate ability, because they are quite easily throwing the auto-one-hit on every attack on every round.

It's a +3 to hit man, it hardly hits as much as sleep. And then there's a damage roll which may not roll enough to drop you. It's an average of 12 damage, but sometimes you may roll under average too, and there's only a damage roll if the +3 attack actually connects with your AC, which isn't very likely in itself.

And had we replaced the hobgoblin with a 1st level wizard, that wizard could cast 2 sleep spells in the fight. So however dangerous you think that 4 hobgoblins are, replace them with 4 level 1 wizards, or anything capable of casting even a single 1st level spell, and it's way worse of a TPK scenario than anything the hobgoblins can do.

It doesn't even have to be sleep, take magic missile, burning hands, whatever. Anything capable of spells is going to wreck a 1st level party far worse than a group of hobgoblins.

Each one, every time. Thats fucking insane.

No, it's really not. It sounds insane since we've been conditioned over the years that melee monsters are jokes, so nobody really bats an eye when a beholder's death ray drops a PC or a medusa's gaze, but the moment a hill giant does it with a club, now everyone is saying it's crazy and it needs to be nerfed.

And then we get into the debate about how spells have to be better than swords because the fighter can fight all day long and the wizard has limits on how many spells he can cast per day. I've never bought into that argument because sword swingers can only do their thing as long as they're still alive and able to take actions. Even though yeah, technically it's an at-will power, it's still finite because you're only going to last so many rounds in combat.

If there's any problem here, it's more that the PC fighter is a piece of garbage, and that's what the hobgoblin showcases, more so than that the hobgoblin is overpowered. The current hobgoblin would be a perfect match for the playtest fighter who could hand out disadvantage on 1 attack per round. Now we've got a melee monster that actually makes the wizard glad he has a meat shield. And that's the way it should be. I hate what they did with the ogre and Nothic, but the hobgoblin is actually spot on to what a lot of melee monsters should look like.

Game design sidebar

It is very important to understand that the PCs are expected to face several groups of monsters over the course of the day. Each group of monsters is only expected to face the party once. So unlimited one-shots are completely unreasonable in a game about resource management.

Well this is D&D, it's always had that problem. My preferred fix for it is to abandon the concept that limited use stuff should be stronger, because daily limits are arbitrary anyway, and should exist just for flavor. Yeah people want vancian casters that have X spells/day. That's just a part of D&D. But when you're balancing the abilities that can't be considered all that serious a restriction to warrant a huge power boost.

Once you do that, then you can have sword attacks that are no longer joke attacks and you don't have to worry about NPC spellcasters being broken.

[Username17]

No, it's really not. It sounds insane since we've been conditioned over the years that melee monsters are jokes, so nobody really bats an eye when a beholder's death ray drops a PC or a medusa's gaze, but the moment a hill giant does it with a club, now everyone is saying it's crazy and it needs to be nerfed.

Dude, stop talking. The whole reason the "closet troll" nomenclature even exists is because monsters that turn you into a fine red mist if they get into melee is and has been totally a thing the entire time. We are very aware of the dynamics of Girallons and Hydras and other monsters that do "go fuck yourself" levels of damage in melee. So when we say that putting one-shot amounts of damage on a CR 1/2 hoard monster is insane, this is not a kneejerk reaction to the unknown. This is carefully reasoned and universally held opinion after shaking out all possible arguments over a fourteen year period.

Saying the it's OK for closet trolls to come in squads at first level is like arguing that Clerics are underpowered in 3rd edition. I mean, there were reasonable people who thought that when Bill Clinton was still president, but no one who has paid a fuck width's attention over the last decade and a half believes that now.

-Username17

[Voss]

Cyber, you prove yourself more of an idiot every damn time. This isn't a swords vs spells issue. This is a one shot issue. If they were throwing sleep it would only be worse because sleep is an area spell that would get 2 to 3 party members. It would still be terrible design if it were 4 sleep monsters rather than 4 hobgoblins, because it's still a damn one shot.

You say it is 'only +3' because you are an idiot that is bad at math. They give you average damage values because they expect people to use them- and that average damage drops -anyone- except a fighter with max con. That 'only' +3 hits a quarter of the time. More on non heavy armor characters, or heavy armor characters who aren't using a shield. But sure assume 18 AC on the whole party. One PC should go down each round of combat. Someone for whom it isn't 3:30 am can do the math on the odds of dropping multiple pcs in a round, but it will happen on a regular basis, which is not the intention or design of this type of monster or fight.

And the bitch of it is they just get it. They need do nothing to get their one shot ability but walk into combat. There are no real protective measures the players can take. Maneuvering goes to fuck when one can double move into standing next to party members and the rest can just unsling bows and fire- by design the monsters act as a group on the same initiative.

But to reiterate since you're thick, this is not a melee monster issue. Especially since they can do it at range- they're simple more optimal in melee. And if they did it with spells, it would still be bad. Monsters in groups with one shot capability are just bad design, because you can seriously stat out the tpk rate. And it isn't a fluke level rate, but one that will come up repeatedly in the normal course of play.

[TiaC]

Someone for whom it isn't 3:30 am can do the math on the odds of dropping multiple pcs in a round, but it will happen on a regular basis, which is not the intention or design of this type of monster or fight.

If 1/4 of their attack drop a PC and there are four of them, 42% of the time they will drop one, 21% of the time they will drop two, and 5% of the time they will drop at least three.

[Cyberzombie]

This isn't a swords vs spells issue. This is a one shot issue.

If PCs have it, monsters need it too. And if you take it away from PCs, you get 4E. We've already been down that road. It sucked. We don't want to go down that road again (at least I don't).

If you played anything other than 4E, you've played with one-shots, and it's been fine. Ghouls, beholders, Mind flayers, carrion crawlers, 1st level wizards, all that stuff and way more has abilities that can take someone out of the fight in a single action. You can argue against outright killing a PC in one shot, but removing them from combat as a one-shot is fine. Every edition except 4E has had that. The only real different with the hobgoblin is that it's doing it with a sword or a bow instead of magic. So I really can't gather why it's such a big deal to you, except for the fact that it's a warrior monster and not some magical creature.

I don't really see what you're arguing for here? Are you saying monsters shouldn't get access to PC spells? Because if you think all one shots are bad, you'd have to have that. Monsters couldn't use PC mechanics at all and would need their own 4E style set up where NPC wizards get nerfed spells.

You say it is 'only +3' because you are an idiot that is bad at math.

I say that because PCs are attacking at +5 (and potentially more). And against an 18 AC PC, they've got a 30% chance of hitting. That isn't all that much. And if the PCs can find a choke point, like a doorway, and have their point man do a dodge maneuver to block the choke, the hobs will be taking disadvantage on all those attacks, which lowers their chance of hitting under 10%.

But sure assume 18 AC on the whole party. One PC should go down each round of combat.

Well first, that assumes that no hobgoblins are dropped. And like I said, one sleep spell and now it's virtually an assured win for the PCs. Even if you run an all fighter PC party, they could all grab defender (since that's smart in a full melee party) and give disadvantage on basically anyone that attacks their buddies. Tough fight, sure, but hardly unwinnable and the edge is always with the PCs. The only place the hobs take the advantage is if they surprise the PCs or something, where they can get to their back ranks and drop the squishies first.

Second, so what? A PC getting dropped isn't the end of the world. You want your game to feel dangerous. Sure there's a chance for a TPK if they roll poorly and the hobs roll good, but, you've thrown 4 hobgoblins at a 1st level party (presumably of 4 PCs), The hobs should have a shot at winning this. Granted they should be the underdogs, but the PCs should absolutely not feel confident in this battle, being only level 1 adventurers. If they're not squirming a little, then I feel the rules are doing something wrong and making things too easy for them.

Level 1 PCs are far from super heroes, they're basically your average apprentice mages and warrior grunts, just with more exceptional ability scores than the average NPC. But being a level 1 fighter or wizard shouldn't make them particularly special in any way.

Someone for whom it isn't 3:30 am can do the math on the odds of dropping multiple pcs in a round, but it will happen on a regular basis, which is not the intention or design of this type of monster or fight.

Says who? I don't see an issue with the fact that 4 hobgoblins might drop a 1st level character in a round. If anything that feels more like working as intended than anything else.

And the bitch of it is they just get it. They need do nothing to get their one shot ability but walk into combat. There are no real protective measures the players can take.

The same could be said about the wizard's spells or a mind flayer's mind blast. I mean I guess you can spread out so an area attack only disables one person at max, but you're going to lose at least one person to either, and with a much lower chance of failure. At least with the hobgoblins, one hobgoblin has to get in melee range first, so anything you can do to help prevent melee works against that. The same can't be said for most spell attacks. In 5E you don't even have to cast defensively. Spells just happen and there isn't a thing you can do to stop it.

I'm just not seeing the outrage here. I mean sure, depending on how challenging they want the hob, it may be a bit overtuned, but it still vastly pales to the power creatures of other editions. You're complaining that a hobgoblin might drop a PC in 5E, but a single mindflayer could potentially take your entire party down in 1E-3E. The hobgoblin is a tough encounter, sure, but it's not the crazy over the top gamebreaker that you seem to think it is. It's just that people aren't used to seeing a melee monster (or PC class for that matter) that doesn't suck, so it seems to stick out from a balance perspective.

[Username17]

If PCs have it, monsters need it too.

This is a joke, right? An actual parody of stupid arguments? No? Holy crap you're an idiot.

Look: the dynamic of team player and team monster are different. Not in every way, but in some important ways. And when we're talking about high end offense capabilities, those differences are super important.

For starters: monsters get to be replaced by reinforcements every time there's a new challenge. Player characters don't. So monsters can have powers like "self destruct to damage nearby foes" and limitations like "can't leave a small area" while players basically can't. If a bloat zombie explodes, that's just tactically interesting - the longterm implications are that the next encounter is going to be with some mantrap plants and the game goes on. But if one of the player characters explodes, then the game has to at the very least pull a hard right turn to work in a new character so that the player in question isn't left out of the game entirely.

But just as there are powers and weaknesses that can appear on team monster rosters without anyone batting an eye that would be the end of the fucking campaign were they to appear on the character sheet of a PC - there are powers that are of modest interest for a PC that are totally gonzo if you let them fall into the hands of team monster. The classic example would be nova abilities. No one really cares if a PC has the ability to cash out all their power points for the day to ultrakill one opponent, because they are normally expecting three more encounters that day. But each set of monsters is still only looking at one set of player characters, and if they ultrakill all of them, that's the end of the fucking campaign.

But above and beyond that, you don't even have a verisimilitude argument to make. We aren't even having a discussion about whether some subset of abilities that PCs have are really appropriate in the hands of Lord Hellwroth. We're talking about Guardsman #2, Guardsman #3, and Guardsman #4! These are unnamed characters that appear in large fucking numbers, giving them access to all the kinds of abilities that player characters get is fucking absurd. Let me remind you for a moment, what generic Hobgoblins are all about:



OK? The idea of those fuckers individually being bestowed with the complexity or offensive power of a genuine main character is completely ridiculous. Even suggesting such a thing makes you a laughingstock.

-Username17

[Cyberzombie]

This is a joke, right? An actual parody of stupid arguments? No? Holy crap you're an idiot.

Ah, the typical gaming den opening insult. I can only suspect that because you felt the need to open with an insult, that it's to detract from the weakness of your actual argument.

But just as there are powers and weaknesses that can appear on team monster rosters without anyone batting an eye that would be the end of the fucking campaign were they to appear on the character sheet of a PC - there are powers that are of modest interest for a PC that are totally gonzo if you let them fall into the hands of team monster. The classic example would be nova abilities. No one really cares if a PC has the ability to cash out all their power points for the day to ultrakill one opponent, because they are normally expecting three more encounters that day. But each set of monsters is still only looking at one set of player characters, and if they ultrakill all of them, that's the end of the fucking campaign.

What the hell are you even talking about?

There's nothing stopping any NPC from having PC class levels and having the exact abilities a PC has. The best solution is to remove nova entirely, because it's a spotlight hog and the 5 minute workday laughs in the face of "expected" encounters.

I really have no idea what you're arguing for, it basically sounds like you're arguing that things need to be more like 4E, where NPC fighters and barbarians don't exist, and not like 3E or AD&D, which all had NPCs with PC class levels. If you're saying that you want 4E design where NPC wizards/barbarians/clerics/etc. shouldn't exist, then outright say that.

I'm going to assume for now that you're okay with monsters using PC classes, because that's the way it works in almost every other RPG other than 4E and rules-lite games like Apocalypse World, which I know you hate. And if you're okay with NPCs using PC classes, then you have to deal with the possibility of monsters doing anything a PC can (and more). But maybe I'm wrong and you want to go the 4E route of saying that the PC wizards are literally the only true wizards in the entire world, then go ahead and say that. But if that's not what you're advocating then you have to accept that NPCs get PC classes, so this whole argument is pointless sidetracking.

And on a more direct level, it's also totally irrelevant because the hobgoblin isn't using any kind of nova ability because his ability is at-will anyway.

You also seem to be implying is that monsters can't have high offensive ratings and you want everything to act like Final Fantasy where monsters are big buckets of HP and low damage compared to the PCs. So when you want to make your powerful monsters, you're forced to give them ridiculously high defense and to compensate for the fact that it's hitting the PCs with padded LARP weapons that needs to wear down a PC through repeated uses before it can drop him. The same kind of bad design that led to 4E's grind fests.

Every version of D&D except 4E gave monsters one-shot attacks that could drop a PC.

Now ask yourself: Which edition of D&D had the slowest and most boring combats? Maybe instead of calling me an idiot you should take some time and try to put 2 and 2 together.

OK? The idea of those fuckers individually being bestowed with the complexity or offensive power of a genuine main character is completely ridiculous. Even suggesting such a thing makes you a laughingstock.

I'm not sure what argument you're even making here because the hobgoblin has a whole one ability that requires no actual bookkeeping because it's at-will. It seems that you're saying that a monster with a whole one at-will ability is too complex for the game and that every monster should have nothing beyond a basic attack? Even suggesting such a thing would make you a laughing stock.

Damn man, even magic cards get some creature powers.

[Mistborn]

I'm not sure what argument you're even making here because the hobgoblin has a whole one ability that requires no actual bookkeeping because it's at-will. It seems that you're saying that a monster with a whole one at-will ability is too complex for the game and that every monster should have nothing beyond a basic attack? Even suggesting such a thing would make you a laughing stock.

Apparently you can't read because Frank said complexity or offensive power, which should be obvious. Since if the average encounter has the same power as the PCs you can't have a campaign because the PCs die every other fight. The fact you don't seem to understand that makes you look like a total idiot.

[virgil]

**completely missing the point**

Did you not pick up on the fact he stated this was the case for nameless mooks?

[tussock]

We should probably develop a fake party with fake tactics before we go having fake fights to argue over.

I'm thinking a Hill Dorf plate&shield Cleric up front as a blocker, a ranged strike High Elf Rogue with advantage longbow attacks, a High Elf sleeper Wizard, and as many extra Rogues and Wizards as the DM allows.

So you hit equal numbers of hobgoblins and the Wizards cast sleep, and whatever doesn't go down gets eaten by longbow sneak attacks after the Cleric gets to them. One round. We can do that twice and then we go home and party the night away. The Rogues are there for things immune to sleep, and the Cleric handles traps via CLW.

I suppose if there's common stuff immune to sleep and sneaks, like basic undead maybe, it might be worth a 2nd Cleric at some point. Putting a Fighter in the party completely ruins all that and probably just gets us killed, because he's dying as quick as he's killing, but that's nothing new.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Speaking to the original title of the thread, my friends that still play TTRPGs had very little interest in D&D Next when it was originally announced. And when they discovered that Shitmuffin and Pundit were involved, that small glimmer of interest went from "very little" to "absolute zero". Pathfinder, 13th Age, and Dungeon World all have flawed rules, but they don't enrich either the pockets or the egos of some of the most toxic members of the online TTRPG community (such as it is).

I just keep wondering when WoTC is *finally* going to get their A-Team rules crafting team involved in fixing the D&D franchise and tying it to MtG. As it stands right now, they are just shitting all over a great piece of intellectual property that could be just as lucrative as MtG. Go figure.

[Voss]

We should probably develop a fake party with fake tactics before we go having fake fights to argue over.

I'm thinking a Hill Dorf plate&shield Cleric up front as a blocker, a ranged strike High Elf Rogue with advantage longbow attacks, a High Elf sleeper Wizard, and as many extra Rogues and Wizards as the DM allows.

Wood Elf rogue. High elves have zero business being rogues. +1 wisdom is functional rather than the +1 con of a halfling (but probably isn't as optimal, though the wood elf move bonus is also great for kiting), but +1 int is completely useless. Personally, I favor anything that can optimize attack, defense and Con, so the halfling wins for me. With a single attack, ever, the loading property of crossbows doesn't matter, so a light crossbow==a longbow for a rogue.

One of the drawbacks of clerics and wizards is they struggle a bit optimizing their spell casting stat, con and AC. The cleric can just be a melee dwarf and take a domain that allows heavy armor, but still focus on cantrips for offense, but the wizard and archer cleric have to struggle a bit, which may mean a 14 con rather than the optimal 16. The fighter and rogue do have the ability to say fuck you and just grab str (or dex) and con and fill in whatever is left (wisdom as the tertiary stat for perception, so they don't get ganked by trap monsters like bugbears and dopplegangers and who knows whatever else).

Putting a Fighter in the party completely ruins all that and probably just gets us killed, because he's dying as quick as he's killing, but that's nothing new.

Well, actually, with the ability to action surge every encounter, that isn't true, and the fighter can manage higher hp and AC (19) and heal himself every encounter, so at low levels the fighter is actually dying less. And against 1st level enemies, the nova means he's probably killing more as well.

The real problem is how quickly this dies off. At third level the cleric can toss off spiritual weapon and fake the extra attack feature (which the fighter doesn't even have yet) for 2 encounters, and the wizard can maintain area damage for entire fights (flaming sphere), so obsolescence is already starting to creep up quickly. At 8th level the cleric is getting slightly scaling damage on weapon attacks.

In many ways the rogue is worse off than the fighter, because it is completely dependent on melee party members existing and being in position and its AC is low enough to be a real problem. (starts at a cap of 15 unless its a mountain dwarf strength rogue which is debatably viable, but is in melee with a 16 AC and 11 hp which is not great). Inherently all the rogue has going for it is infinite kiting from 2nd level on, but since the rest of the party can't do that, all it means is the rogue must be crossbow sniper (or wood elf archer I suppose) and is always isolated... which can be terrible if the DM gets annoyed with this shit and a bugbear or doppleganger comes in and eats his face with a surprise round.

And if you want to argue locks or traps or some shit, you can always have a fighter archer (or wood elf cleric archer, which I realized last night was also viable) take the criminal background and just snag proficiency in lock picks. Done.

So really the optimal party is a mix of hill dwarf melee clerics and wood elf archers clerics smattered with a high elf wizard (archer) and a mountain dwarf fighter (sword and board and AC bonus). And for optimization purposes, those class/race combinations are not variable.


Though it is also worth noting that the spell casters can chuck their bows for cantrips at level 5, since they are going to increment their casting ability score at level 4, and the cantrips gain a second damage die at 5th level, (so +7 for 2d8 vs +6 for 1d8+3).*

*though with the right spell selection (i.e. no attack or save based spells) you can afford to not increment your casting ability score at all, and increment your dex for both the ranged attack and for AC. This does fall apart for wizards at 11th level when the cantrip damage increments again, (+9 for 3d8 vs +9 for 1d8+5), but Life clerics at least are getting divine strike, so are doing 2d8+5 with bow attacks at 8th (which is better than 3d8 at 11th), and this increments to 3d8+5 at 14th level, before cantrips increment again at 17th.


Thought for the day: 5e runs solely on the Tyranny of Math. Choice A is right, Choice B is wrong. And this runs from class/race combinations to weapon selection. So far spells are the only thing in the system that allows any sort of choice, and by default starting out you memorize 4 (and clerics get 6, with 2 set by domain) and cast 2, so you can even afford to take something interesting rather than merely required.

And the really sad part is the Player's Handbook will open up a few more Right Choices. But it will also introduce more Wrong Choices by an order of magnitude.

[animea90]

We should probably develop a fake party with fake tactics before we go having fake fights to argue over.

I'm thinking a Hill Dorf plate&shield Cleric up front as a blocker, a ranged strike High Elf Rogue with advantage longbow attacks, a High Elf sleeper Wizard, and as many extra Rogues and Wizards as the DM allows.

So you hit equal numbers of hobgoblins and the Wizards cast sleep, and whatever doesn't go down gets eaten by longbow sneak attacks after the Cleric gets to them. One round. We can do that twice and then we go home and party the night away. The Rogues are there for things immune to sleep, and the Cleric handles traps via CLW.

I suppose if there's common stuff immune to sleep and sneaks, like basic undead maybe, it might be worth a 2nd Cleric at some point. Putting a Fighter in the party completely ruins all that and probably just gets us killed, because he's dying as quick as he's killing, but that's nothing new.

That works if the party wins initiative. If hobglobins do, then charge and 1 shot a PC. It's a vey swingy fight.

[Night Goat]

I just keep wondering when WoTC is *finally* going to get their A-Team rules crafting team involved in fixing the D&D franchise and tying it to MtG. As it stands right now, they are just shitting all over a great piece of intellectual property that could be just as lucrative as MtG. Go figure.

Never going to happen. WotC is owned by a huge corporation, and huge corporations aren't really run by people. They're run by things that may look human, but aren't really sentient at all - they're essentially just machines, running a complex but flawed algorithm. Their purpose is "make money", but they don't see "make a quality product" as a means to that end.

The soulless creatures who run things don't really understand what quality is, so they focus on marketing instead. Their approach with 5e is to do a whole lot of old-school posturing, and I'm worried that it will work.