D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Tony Vargas]

Balance is irrelevant to this discussion and sidesteps the issue. The discussion was on variety of play style.

Balance is critical in supporting a breadth of play styles, too. Take the 5mwd L&L, for instance, to kludge the balance issues that mixing old-fashioned Vancian casters with old-fashioned power-less fighters brings, it prescribed a fixed pacing of X encounters (or rounds, rather), per day, greatly narrowing the range of play styles that 5e will be able to support, due to pacing, alone.

The balance of Essentials is the subject of many debates.
Personally, I think the only reason they seem underpowered at times is the number of options available to other classes, especially the overpowered options. The problem isn't Essentials, but the balance of everything prior.

Funny that pre-Essentials didn't have much in the way of balance problems, then, isn't it? And WotC was pretty good about nerfing over-powered options as they cropped up in 4e, too. The imbalance introduced with daily-less classes in 4e is simple, numeric and demonstrable, it's the same phenomenon that causes (much more pronounced) imbalances with Vancian casters vs non-casters in 3.x and earlier. Heck, even Mike Mearls copped to it the afore-mentioned L&L.

Because 4e classes had much less of their power tied up in their dailies than prior ed casters did, the problem Essentials introduced is not nearly so bad, though. If 5e were taking a similar approach, and giving Vancian casters far fewer and far less potent daily spells, it would at least be a smaller problem - but all 5e seems to have done so far is add fairly potent at-wills over and above 3e-style Vancian casting.

And, again, the design of the classes isn't related to the balance or imbalance. That's a matter of specifics and playtesting.

I can't agree. Flogging balance into a broken structure with playtesting, nerfing, and kludging has never worked (at best, it results in a very narrow, often rather odd style of play in which some semblance of balance can be achieved), while building balance into a common structure from the ground up did. Sure, a lot of folks hated the (balanced) result, but it still worked.

 

[Mircoles]

Get rid of vancian magic.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Was that really a necessary addition? Did you need to say that? Do comments like that ever add anything to the discourse but anger?

Yes. They pinpoint to third party observers where the problem is.

From your example, the rogue and ranger do play similarly. Both move of the enemy but stay close to the fighter, likely both manoeuvring for a flank because the +2 to hit is nice, and both cannot take a hit.
The avenger, there is a slight difference to play. It was probably a poorer example on my part.

And here you are not only messing up your tactics, you are missing the point of the rogue rules and ignoring the facts presented. The two weapon ranger gains +2 to hit, which is nice - but in play there are only two classes that routinely have lower ACs; wizards and sorcerors. The rogue gains +2 to hit and sneak attack. A much greater reward.

The rogue does +2d6 sneak attack damage (or more) at heroic tier. Of these, the first d6 is mathematically needed to make up for the rogue using a small weapon rather than a two handed weapon. The second d6 brings them up to striker level. So any turn you aren't getting sneak attack you might as well not be a striker at all - a leader or defender with a two handed weapon normally hits harder than you do. The +2 to hit for the ranger from CA is nice. The +2d6 damage for the rogue from CA allows you to do your job in combat - and literally any turn you aren't attacking with CA you aren't doing your job properly.

The avenger was no poorer an example than the rogue. You might have been on sturdier ground if you'd used the barbarian and the two weapon ranger. Except the Barbarian can take a hit. And rages like a maniac.

My point was not that there are NO differences in play, but that they are small, and that people will FIND differences. My point was that 4e classes are identical but, under close examination, fans will find ways to say "nuh-uh".

And mine was that if you try to use a rogue like a two weapon ranger you are displaying a level of tactical ineptitude that means you are unable to do your job despite having all the necessary tools available.

I'm not aware that he is required to do so. Isn't this a play style issue?

It's a matter of what used to be called 'Player Skill'. That you are actually in character trying to win by whatever conditions your character thinks are appropriate.

Oddly enough, it does. Adding 'diversity' by adding more choices (more classes, each with unique mechanical sub-systems) is only successful if those choices are viable.

This. A thousand times this. The 'Pogo stick fighter' (a fighter who bounces through the dungeon on a pogo stick, wieldign a flail) is an option in any edition of D&D. It just isn't much of one.

Balance is irrelevant to this discussion and sidesteps the issue. The discussion was on variety of play style.

Imbalance combined with any form of actually caring about outcomes whether in character or out of character cuts down on the play styles that are actually viable. BMX Bandit may be interesting in his own right but isn't worth playing with Angel Summoner in the party.

 

[Jester David]

Funny that pre-Essentials didn't have much in the way of balance problems, then, isn't it? And WotC was pretty good about nerfing over-powered options as they cropped up in 4e, too. The imbalance introduced with daily-less classes in 4e is simple, numeric and demonstrable, it's the same phenomenon that causes (much more pronounced) imbalances with Vancian casters vs non-casters in 3.x and earlier. Heck, even Mike Mearls copped to it the afore-mentioned L&L.

This is so far from true...

Pages of errata in the Esentials books: 1. Combined.
Pages for PHB3: 3
Pages for PHB2: 3
Pages for PHB1: 27

27 pages of tweaks and and patches. And while WotC is decent and removing or updating overpowered options (as seen in those 27 pages) they're far les great at reevaluating those changes, frequently nerfing options into irrelevance, and almost never boost underpowered option.

And again, the problem isn't the balance of Essentials, but the balance of Essentials compared to everything prior and all the potential options and power creep. Which was the real balance issue behind Essentials: the stated from the ase balance, not the new creep baseline.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is so far from true...

Pages of errata in the Esentials books: 1. Combined.
Pages for PHB3: 3
Pages for PHB2: 3
Pages for PHB1: 27

That's not because there aren't plenty of broken things in Essentials, it's because they changed their update policy after complaints of 'too much errata.' It's another reason Essentials balance is more precarious than it was pre-Essentials - they're not bothering to maintain it as much.

 

[Jester David]

That's not because there aren't plenty of broken things in Essentials, it's because they changed their update policy after complaints of 'too much errata.' It's another reason Essentials balance is more precarious than it was pre-Essentials - they're not bothering to maintain it as much.

So... the PHB1 having almost 10-times the updates and changes as the PHB2 or PHB3, and possibly more than the other books combined is entirely because they changed their update policy? A policy change that happened well after PHB3 was released years after PHB2 was released.

Don't buy it. It's an excuse for their being little updates for Essentials, but not for the PHB1 having so much overpowered broken content that required revision and updating.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So... the PHB1 having almost 10-times the updates and changes as the PHB2 or PHB3, and possibly more than the other books combined is entirely because they changed their update policy?

And because it was the first book in the line, sure. Perhaps even because it was a rush job and had more than a fair share of actual errors... But the reason Essentials has relatively little errata is because they changed their policy and gave up on trying to fix things. Essentials is loaded with overpowered feats and imbalanced classes, among other failings. Some of the simplest and most obvious get errata'd, but a lot of it is just reflective of a change in policy and philosophy. Not that changes extensive enough to fix the class balance issues it introduced are even within the scope of errata.

Another way of putting it is that the broken bits in the PH1 were unintentional, thus fixed with errata, while the class imbalance in Essentials was intentional (to meet the same percieved demand that 5e is struggling to fill), and thus is not being errata'd.

 

[Obryn]

So... the PHB1 having almost 10-times the updates and changes as the PHB2 or PHB3, and possibly more than the other books combined is entirely because they changed their update policy? A policy change that happened well after PHB3 was released years after PHB2 was released.

Don't buy it. It's an excuse for their being little updates for Essentials, but not for the PHB1 having so much overpowered broken content that required revision and updating.

The original PHB needed so much errata because the designers had no idea how their game worked with real populations of people before it was released. Or else, they didn't listen to them. It was not playtested well enough, and obvious problems like the issues with soldiers and brutes (and monster damage altogether), intensely dull Solo monsters, V-shaped classes, obviously broken powers, math bugs that required feat patches, and the like were not caught before release. And it's a damn shame - it's one of several big ways in which the 4e launch was bungled (the other three main ones being overselling the online tools, Keep on the Shadowfell, and the original late-and-draconian GSL).

Tony - you're still convinced that Essentials classes and non-Essentials ones don't work together. Having seen them in play together for 15 levels so far, I'm still not seeing it.

Jester Canuck - The Essentials books have low errata for a few main reasons, and it's not the update schedule. (1) The designers know their rules and don't need to fix stuff like Stealth and skill challenges; (2) The new classes have many fewer moving parts, and a vastly smaller list of powers which could need errata; and (3) the designers were actually good at designing for 4e by then, knew what could cause problems, and caught most of the problems before errata would be needed.

-O

 

[D'karr]

Pages of errata in the Esentials books: 1. Combined.
Pages for PHB3: 3
Pages for PHB2: 3
Pages for PHB1: 27

I'm glad for those 27 pages, there were some things in the first phb that were seriously overpowered, but mostly when used in a "broken" way. I never had a problem with my group with any of the "broken" powers because they simply do not play in that manner.

I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of groups out there that probably never looked at the errata, or cared that there was any at all. They either house ruled any issues or their gameplay was just fine and didn't require adjustment. Just because we on the internet pay so much attention to it, does not make the issue a huge deal.

Essentials had "less" errata for two reasons. They finally figured out that they needed a better review of the rules, and they had several years of experience with the actual rules at that time.

If WotC did a "revised" printing of the original books right now, and incorporated errata, there would be less errata after those books too.

3.x had a bunch of errata, and unfortunately a bunch of stuff that should have been errataed that never was because they were already working on the new game. The game still plays fine if you incorporate some of the errata, all of it, or none at all. It's not a huge deal.

 

[Incenjucar]

The keywords unlock options, but that doesn't make the base power different. You may not be able to use "arcane boost feat Y" with a martial power, but you can use the equivalent "martial boost feat X" instead, added for balance and equivalence.
And, at the end of the day, you can take a power and swap the keyword and the power does not change. It does not affect the power. You can swap "spell" for "prayer" and change "divine" to "arcane" and no one would likely notice.

If you make sure to avoid anything that has to do with the type of abilities you use, sure. My invoker MC druid does in fact have to worry about what is divine or not, since he has abilities that trigger only on divine powers. This is the consequence of a choice I made.

You can absolutely build a character that doesn't get much out of the nuances of their abilities, but that's your decision. Someone could just as easily build a character who abuses their favored damage type. Even if you never ever fight any enemies with immunity or resistances, and you avoid all damage type interactions like Frost Cheese or the Radiant Mafia or Elementals with Poison immunity, and you never play a dwarf or a shardmind or a tiefling or a genasi, at the very very least you aren't going to be using psychic, poison, necrotic damage against most objects, nor are you going to use Will attacks on them.

If you have identical cars with different names, but car Y has an spoiler attachment as an option that can legally only be applied to car Y, that doesn't mean the un-modified cards are any less identical.


But, if there's no mechanical equivalent, is there a difference? It's not like fire always burns for ongoing, poison does damage over time, cold slows, and the like. Any of the ways other games differentiate energy types.
For 90% of the game, energy type is irrelevant.

If one job pays you $20 an hour and you can found a career off of it if you put your mind to it, and another job pays $20 an hour, and goes nowhere, clearly they are the same.

What you're suggesting is homogenizing the effects of damage types, but you forget how many threads involved people trying to get around the limited concepts attached to particular damage types. Many people don't want damage types to be one-trick ponies, especially since those tricks rarely stack.