A friend (who's probably the guy with the best knack for hacking systems apart I know) and I were at a loose end at the weekend so we decided to test out the Starter Set, with him running all 5 PCs at once so he could get a taster of how each of the iconic classes work in 5E.

We were both very impressed! At level 1 the game seems to hit this sweet spot where you feel like you have a basic level of competence, but at the same time you also feel like you are genuinely in danger from your foes - we found that sneaky creatures like Goblins have a good chance of surprising level 1 characters in an ambush, for instance, and the first fight might have gone very differently had not the wizard been the sole PC not surprised (Sleep is your level 1 wizard's best friend, as it has always been). We also liked that the spellcasting system manages to step away from strict Vancian spellcasting whilst at the same time requiring spellcasters to do some planning ahead and resource management, and the shift from 5 minutes rests to short rests requiring at least an hour we consider to be a big change.

To put this in context, we've both played a lot of 2E and 3E and a bit of 4E; we both were put off 4E fairly early on by the long combats and the disconnect with mainline D&D, and we found 3.X to be fiddly enough that most of our gaming with it took place via GMed Neverwinter Nights modules rather than tabletop; we both came away from the playtest feeling positive about 5E, and I was especially impressed with how fast combats are; my previous D&D campaign was a 2E one and I liked how easy it was to run theatre-of-the-mind combat as I did for 2E and how smoothly it all goes. Obviously the speed of progression would be different if I were running for multiple players, but it's definitely the case that as far as play progression in 5E goes, the rate determining step is how much time the players spend debating their next course of action outside of combat, rather than how much time is spent resolving combats.

I'm personally debating on just following 2e procedure and have a Declare Actions step before Initiative, just to speed up players' decisions. Keeps things very theater-of-the-mind and flowing instead of de-coupled into the tactical. Also keeps the unpredictability of battle, which I find players love.

That said Hold action we are used to in 2e has changed significantly to Ready action. I suggest reading up on it. It provides some neat new delegating powers, at the cost of touch more mechanical reference (i.e. reduced action economy, concentration, post-trigger optional, etc.).

Quote from: Warthur;775522A friend (who's probably the guy with the best knack for hacking systems apart I know) and I were at a loose end at the weekend so we decided to test out the Starter Set, with him running all 5 PCs at once so he could get a taster of how each of the iconic classes work in 5E.

We were both very impressed! At level 1 the game seems to hit this sweet spot where you feel like you have a basic level of competence, but at the same time you also feel like you are genuinely in danger from your foes - we found that sneaky creatures like Goblins have a good chance of surprising level 1 characters in an ambush, for instance, and the first fight might have gone very differently had not the wizard been the sole PC not surprised (Sleep is your level 1 wizard's best friend, as it has always been). We also liked that the spellcasting system manages to step away from strict Vancian spellcasting whilst at the same time requiring spellcasters to do some planning ahead and resource management, and the shift from 5 minutes rests to short rests requiring at least an hour we consider to be a big change.

To put this in context, we've both played a lot of 2E and 3E and a bit of 4E; we both were put off 4E fairly early on by the long combats and the disconnect with mainline D&D, and we found 3.X to be fiddly enough that most of our gaming with it took place via GMed Neverwinter Nights modules rather than tabletop; we both came away from the playtest feeling positive about 5E, and I was especially impressed with how fast combats are; my previous D&D campaign was a 2E one and I liked how easy it was to run theatre-of-the-mind combat as I did for 2E and how smoothly it all goes. Obviously the speed of progression would be different if I were running for multiple players, but it's definitely the case that as far as play progression in 5E goes, the rate determining step is how much time the players spend debating their next course of action outside of combat, rather than how much time is spent resolving combats.

Were you all fabulously wealthy or something?  It sounds like just a plain old crazy fun playtest to me.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;775532Were you all fabulously wealthy or something?  It sounds like just a plain old crazy fun playtest to me.

Obviously they are a pair of English aristocrats old son. You can tell by the native mask avatar that one chappie brought back from his trip to the Colonies.

I agree.  In my experience from our session last week, sleep is still the best spell to have at 1st level.

Also, what I do with initiative (and always have), is everyone rolls and I roll once for all monsters, and I just tell the players, "Everyone higher than X (what I rolled) can go."  That way they can decide without needing to "officially" hold an action or whatever.  And it's fast.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;775651I agree.  In my experience from our session last week, sleep is still the best spell to have at 1st level.

Also, what I do with initiative (and always have), is everyone rolls and I roll once for all monsters, and I just tell the players, "Everyone higher than X (what I rolled) can go."  That way they can decide without needing to "officially" hold an action or whatever.  And it's fast.

I really like that idea. It's a bit like the EOTE initiative slot system, only less fiddly.

QuoteA friend (who's probably the guy with the best knack for hacking systems apart I know) and I were at a loose end at the weekend so we decided to test out the Starter Set, with him running all 5 PCs at once so he could get a taster of how each of the iconic classes work in 5E.

Did your friend find running all five of them difficult? I can imagine it being fine for the first couple of levels, but once the subclasses start in I don't envy him.

Welcome to the site!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;775677Welcome to the site!

Thanks! Had the day off work, so decided to do some pre-noon drinking and internet wanderings. Ended up here through a fortuitous nest of RPG article links.

Quote from: Warthur;775522Obviously the speed of progression would be different if I were running for multiple players, but it's definitely the case that as far as play progression in 5E goes, the rate determining step is how much time the players spend debating their next course of action outside of combat, rather than how much time is spent resolving combats.

"Deciding the next course of action" is one of the most enjoyable parts of the game for me.

Quote from: Saplatt;775881"Deciding the next course of action" is one of the most enjoyable parts of the game for me.

I like that.

But I am of the play to find out what happens school or RPGing.

Let's decide on a cool, clever, wacky, wild, in character, or something course of action. Great. Now let's find out what happens when the characters try that course of action. Maybe it works like they planned. Maybe it works even better than they hoped. Maybe it all goes down the crapper. The fun for me is choosing and then finding out.

I'm intrigued by the idea of playing through the Starter Set with just one player running all five PCs. I would've assumed it'd be kinda overwhelming, but it sounds like y'all did just fine. Maybe this weekend we can try that, or have one of us take 3 PCs and whoever's DMing take the other 2.

I'd love to see combat pace picked up a bit, so this sounds really appealing.

Quote from: Dana;775961I'm intrigued by the idea of playing through the Starter Set with just one player running all five PCs. I would've assumed it'd be kinda overwhelming, but it sounds like y'all did just fine. Maybe this weekend we can try that, or have one of us take 3 PCs and whoever's DMing take the other 2.

I'd love to see combat pace picked up a bit, so this sounds really appealing.

5e is already 2e quick concerning combat Dana. Just sayin'. Especially if you use rolling group initiative or a derivative. If something goes more then 5-6 rounds that means you fucked up and are fighting a dragon or similar on THEIR terms.

Our group had a similar experience to the OP. We all felt competent yet threatened.

Our poor fighter must've been attacked a dozen times in our first session, and despite his high AC, was hit each time. He was dropped twice and each time failed 2 death saving throws before the cleric was able to bring him back while the rest of us were trying to hold the monsters back. Very exciting.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;775651Also, what I do with initiative (and always have), is everyone rolls and I roll once for all monsters, and I just tell the players, "Everyone higher than X (what I rolled) can go."  That way they can decide without needing to "officially" hold an action or whatever.  And it's fast.

That is the best initiative idea yet.  It allows for granularity, randomness, tactical discussion, allows fast folks to be fast and is easier to manage than counting up or down (whichever the case may be).

Quote from: Marleycat;7759695e is already 2e quick concerning combat Dana. Just sayin'. Especially if you use rolling group initiative or a derivative. If something goes more then 5-6 rounds that means you fucked up and are fighting a dragon or similar on THEIR terms.

Cool. :-) I typically use group initiative. If it's a particularly tricky battle and I'm running 2e/PO, I do group initiative with weapon speed thrown into the mix, but if it's not meant to be a significant encounter, we go with more of a broad brush approach.