Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Someone · Jul 13, 2012

WarlockLord said:
Other than nerds>jocks, no.

So the argument that a mundane character wall running would dent the verosimilitude of fortresses modeled on real world ones and shouldn't be accepted, but it's ok to have:

Commune, Contact other plane, Plane shift and the like,
Zone of truth, Detect lies, and so on,
Make whole, Mend, Fabricate, Create food and water, Wall of Iron, and others,
Detect good/law/chaos/evil, to put an example,
Fireball, and many other AoE spells,
Cure spells, Cure disease, and the kind,
Raise Dead, Resurrect and their ilk,
Animate dead, Create undead and similar

Even when they would radically alter the ideas and practices on religion and the afterlife, judicial procedures, concepts of personal responsability and practices of mercantile transactions, cafting and the economy, interpersonal relationships and ethics, warfare, politics and inheritance, advancements on medicine, burial practices and generally speaking, technological and cultural development doesn't hold much water either?

Balesir · Jul 13, 2012

But, without them, it wouldn't be D&D!

Zustiur · Jul 13, 2012

Lanefan said:
As for level drain and-or level boost, sure these things can throw balance out of whack - that's the point! One character gains a level from a Deck of Many Things while another loses two against a Vampire - this stuff happens; and is another reason why the game needs to be able to handle some level variance within the party.

Not to mention the old assumption that any new or replacement character starts at level 1, no matter what level the rest of the party is! It's all very well to say AD&D wasn't balanced because the wizard gained power at a different rate to other classes, but all such considerations should be taken in context. If the written expectation is that replacement characters start at level 1, and that wizards will die more easily than fighters, then the balance across levels doesn't look quite so bad afterall. The wizard won't outstrip the fighter so much if he's 6 levels behind due to dying a couple of times.

erleni · Jul 13, 2012

Balesir said:
But, without them, it wouldn't be D&D!

So 5e should not allow a believable representation of a fantasy world, but actually model D&D itself? :hmm:

Naaaaaa...

pemerton · Jul 13, 2012

Zustiur said:
Not to mention the old assumption that any new or replacement character starts at level 1, no matter what level the rest of the party is! It's all very well to say AD&D wasn't balanced because the wizard gained power at a different rate to other classes, but all such considerations should be taken in context. If the written expectation is that replacement characters start at level 1, and that wizards will die more easily than fighters, then the balance across levels doesn't look quite so bad afterall.

I don't think that AD&D (at least, 1st ed AD&D) makes any such assumption.

The only written discussion of starting level that I recall is in the DMG. It suggests that experienced players should start above 1st level. (I can't remember what level ranges it suggests - maybe 3+?)

Now because the AD&D DMG assumes a single campaign world with many PCs adventuring in it of quite different levels, I take it that this suggestion is meant to be that new (but experienced) players entering the campaign get to start with higher level PCs. Presumably that would also apply to new (but experienced) players whose PCs have died.

Tony Vargas · Jul 13, 2012

Lanefan said:
Actually it works just fine when XP are given out individually, as the "balance" is then somewhat left in the characters' (and by extension, players') hands. If you choose to sit out encounter after encounter then yes, you're gonna get left behind in the level count; if you stick yer nose in every time then you'll get rewarded for the added risk you've taken.

Well, or how often you can make it to game sessions. Some DMs award exp to everyone who makes the session, while others award exp individually based on what you do in play. The former introduces imbalance to encourage players to show up, so also using it to 'balance' classes is a little dicey. The latter messes up exp-progression-as-balance because the more capable/powerful/versatile class will give the player more opportunities to pick up bigger experience awards.

As for level drain and-or level boost, sure these things can throw balance out of whack - that's the point!

Well, there you go, then. If the point is imbalance, than a poor balancing mechanism is desirable.

Lanefan · Jul 14, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
Well, or how often you can make it to game sessions. Some DMs award exp to everyone who makes the session, while others award exp individually based on what you do in play. The former introduces imbalance to encourage players to show up, so also using it to 'balance' classes is a little dicey.

'Round here, XP are a character reward, not a player reward. You can be here every single session but if your character hangs back and doesn't do much you won't advance very fast.

The latter messes up exp-progression-as-balance because the more capable/powerful/versatile class will give the player more opportunities to pick up bigger experience awards.

Which is the exact reason for 1e's variable advancement rates by class.

Well, there you go, then. If the point is imbalance, than a poor balancing mechanism is desirable.

More than a few times in here the Deck of Many Things has come up as one of the (if not outright the) most popular magic item ever.

The Deck can give levels. It can take them away. It can play merry hell with party balance in these and all sorts of other ways. And people love it!

Would this too be sacrificed on the altar of balance? I sure hope not...

Lanefan

Mircoles · Jul 14, 2012

UGH!! So many pages

Tony Vargas · Jul 14, 2012

Lanefan said:
Which is the exact reason for 1e's variable advancement rates by class.

Then those advancement schemes can't /also/ be providing 'balance' to the more powerful/slower-advancing classes.

More than a few times in here the Deck of Many Things has come up as one of the (if not outright the) most popular magic item ever.

Really? What a bizarre choice. It's certainly a memorable item, but it's really just a collection of beneficial and cursed items with a forced random element.

Hm... OK, that makes sense. If you like the basic assumption of treasure-hunting and paranoia that classic D&D works on: that you gain meaningful power and character-definition by getting magic items, but cursed magic items can instantly annihilate you (among other more interesting/humiliating thing), and there's no real way to use 'smart play' to get the former without running afoul of the later, then the Deck of Many Things is D&D in microcosm. You make choices for your character, but in the end, his fate is a matter of random chance.

Zustiur · Jul 14, 2012

Lanefan said:
More than a few times in here the Deck of Many Things has come up as one of the (if not outright the) most popular magic item ever.

The Deck can give levels. It can take them away. It can play merry hell with party balance in these and all sorts of other ways. And people love it!

Would this too be sacrificed on the altar of balance? I sure hope not...

This brings up a highly important question, which is at the background of all of these discussions, but is rarely mentioned:

Exactly how balanced does a game have to be to satisfy the fans' requirement for balance?

Perfect balance is impossible to achieve without making everyone identical (like sides are in Chess). Near perfect balance takes years of constant tweaking to achieve (like the balance in Starcraft). (What I call) Acceptable balance is pretty much how 3E looks below level 6.