Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The final word on DPR, feats and class balance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7438614" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Not how I recall it, at all. The fretting was over /attracting/ new players, not retaining them (which, IMX, 4e did startlingly well compared to every other edition I've ever run for new players), and, of course, moving books...</p><p></p><p>I've run a lot of introductory games over the decades, at conventions, and in organized play. The flow of new players trying 4e for the first time wasn't exactly huge, 5e is huger, that way, for instance and 1e obviously was (while 2e was deadsville once M:tG dropped). But, while in any other edition, a new player would show up, try the game, and never be seen again, at Encounter's they'd pretty consistently stay the season, often a second, and more often and much more quickly than I was accustomed to, step up and DM. It was so dramatic and unexpected I find it hard to believe it was some aberration that kept happening from early 2010 up to the playtest. </p><p>OTOH, 'new' players coming from prior eds would very often try it once and never be seen again. I had one couple that stayed for a whole season before going to PF. And one compared to dozens of newbies, old-timer who stuck it out the whole time.</p><p></p><p>But I can believe there were many potential players who never got as far as sitting down to that first session....</p><p></p><p> Organized play used pregens, and when I'd run at cons I would, likewise. Maybe that's why I saw 0 issues with 'build complexity.' Or maybe it was that the old off-line CB was /so/ easy to get your digital mitts on (even once they went to on-line whole tables, even two tables at a time, would share one account). </p><p></p><p>(Or, maybe it was that there really wasn't much of anything to building a 1st level character. You choose a race & class, the class description tells you which stats to emphasize, recommends a few possible feats, you pick 2 of several at-wills, 1 of several encounters, 1 of several dailies, a few skills. It's less complexity than building a 5e caster or half-caster, and significantly less than planning a viable 3.x build. From there, each level you pick one or two things, and maybe change one thing)</p><p></p><p>But, the 'wall of books' was certainly a thing. On occasions, someone would come in and ask about the books on the shelf, which were a solid shelf of D&D, and more than a few of PF, and after the involved explanation, just walk away. </p><p></p><p>The run-up to Essentials included the same set of concerns - shelf-shock, rapid product cycling, lack of appeal to returning players, complexity of fighter builds, specifically, and offered similar solutions - and failed to make any impact that I noticed (it neither pulled in more people, nor retained more, IMX). </p><p></p><p>And, of course, Mearls was reluctant to address the fact the product he tried to push was subject to constant, virulent, negativity, he'd euphemistically say "divide in the community" or "support for more play styles" or something...</p><p></p><p>...but, 5e /did/ take care of that issue, and is doing very well. It did not meaningfully reduce build complexity (especially compared to Essentials), but it did reduce shelf-shock.</p><p></p><p>Another big difference I see is in retention. 5e doesn't retain and transition to DMing totally new players like 4e did, but it attracts & retains long-time & returning players extremely well. People come in to AL, now, saying "I played in high school" or something, and they're still there two years later. Amazing. I though those folks were a wild-goose chase, that they'd never really been into the game (some aunt bought them the basic set and they never played it or something). But, nope, the come-back finally came back. Best thing that's happened to D&D in a very long time.</p><p></p><p> IDK, that sound suspiciously like the "MMO" or 'board game like' play that's become downright pejorative. But, yes, it /is/ hard to design a balanced game that's both easy to get into, and has great depth for the experienced player, and, no, it seems like 5e hasn't quite done it - it's been too busy threading a different needle: the delicate act of acceptability to hard-core fans vs appeal to new (casual/mainstream) fans.</p><p></p><p> I'd say it'd be fair to be surprised that there aren't many more. Perhaps most of them are still playing PF?</p><p></p><p> And if DPR were King, the fighter would be King, or at least still Lord @9th or Baronet or something... </p><p></p><p> That's pretty fair, really. In 2nd, the fighter got a big boost in damage if they (ab)used specialization correctly, while some spells got damage caps, and each edition has loosened the limitations on casters (more spells, at-will spells, concentration check to avoid interruption, removing interruption entirely, easier handling of components, etc, etc... by 4e there were virtually no meaningful limitations on casting, ranged/area spells provoked just like ranged attacks was the main one - in 5e, that's gone - and don't start on 'Concentration' so some spells have a duration of 'concentration,' just like some 1e spells did, and much like 4e 'sustain' spells but without an action required to do so, just, if they'd be broken in 5e, you get a roll to keep 'em going, anyway).</p><p></p><p>The wizard has been both those, and a major damage-dealer, and pretty near whatever else it wanted, through much of D&D's history. 4e tried to constrain the wizard to 'controller,' but even that was a muddy, double-dipped role that included area blasting, battlefield control (walls, zones &c), and direct 'hard' control - /and/ free access to the utility kit of Rituals. </p><p></p><p> AC, hps, & DPR are all part of the same race-to-0-hps of simplistic combat analysis. And, yes, DPR is the biggest baddest variable in that calculation (well, really attacks/round is). That doesn't make it King, the local petty robber-Baron, perhaps, whom the actual King (magic) can dispatch at a moment's notice. ;P</p><p></p><p>Seriously, though, the point is that the swing you can get in DPR with weapon, style & feat choices is a lot more significant than the +1 hp/level for having a d10 instead of d8 or the +1 AC from a shield.</p><p></p><p>It's just math. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p>/Very simple/ math. ;|</p><p></p><p></p><p>What? Like Combat Expertise?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7438614, member: 996"] Not how I recall it, at all. The fretting was over /attracting/ new players, not retaining them (which, IMX, 4e did startlingly well compared to every other edition I've ever run for new players), and, of course, moving books... I've run a lot of introductory games over the decades, at conventions, and in organized play. The flow of new players trying 4e for the first time wasn't exactly huge, 5e is huger, that way, for instance and 1e obviously was (while 2e was deadsville once M:tG dropped). But, while in any other edition, a new player would show up, try the game, and never be seen again, at Encounter's they'd pretty consistently stay the season, often a second, and more often and much more quickly than I was accustomed to, step up and DM. It was so dramatic and unexpected I find it hard to believe it was some aberration that kept happening from early 2010 up to the playtest. OTOH, 'new' players coming from prior eds would very often try it once and never be seen again. I had one couple that stayed for a whole season before going to PF. And one compared to dozens of newbies, old-timer who stuck it out the whole time. But I can believe there were many potential players who never got as far as sitting down to that first session.... Organized play used pregens, and when I'd run at cons I would, likewise. Maybe that's why I saw 0 issues with 'build complexity.' Or maybe it was that the old off-line CB was /so/ easy to get your digital mitts on (even once they went to on-line whole tables, even two tables at a time, would share one account). (Or, maybe it was that there really wasn't much of anything to building a 1st level character. You choose a race & class, the class description tells you which stats to emphasize, recommends a few possible feats, you pick 2 of several at-wills, 1 of several encounters, 1 of several dailies, a few skills. It's less complexity than building a 5e caster or half-caster, and significantly less than planning a viable 3.x build. From there, each level you pick one or two things, and maybe change one thing) But, the 'wall of books' was certainly a thing. On occasions, someone would come in and ask about the books on the shelf, which were a solid shelf of D&D, and more than a few of PF, and after the involved explanation, just walk away. The run-up to Essentials included the same set of concerns - shelf-shock, rapid product cycling, lack of appeal to returning players, complexity of fighter builds, specifically, and offered similar solutions - and failed to make any impact that I noticed (it neither pulled in more people, nor retained more, IMX). And, of course, Mearls was reluctant to address the fact the product he tried to push was subject to constant, virulent, negativity, he'd euphemistically say "divide in the community" or "support for more play styles" or something... ...but, 5e /did/ take care of that issue, and is doing very well. It did not meaningfully reduce build complexity (especially compared to Essentials), but it did reduce shelf-shock. Another big difference I see is in retention. 5e doesn't retain and transition to DMing totally new players like 4e did, but it attracts & retains long-time & returning players extremely well. People come in to AL, now, saying "I played in high school" or something, and they're still there two years later. Amazing. I though those folks were a wild-goose chase, that they'd never really been into the game (some aunt bought them the basic set and they never played it or something). But, nope, the come-back finally came back. Best thing that's happened to D&D in a very long time. IDK, that sound suspiciously like the "MMO" or 'board game like' play that's become downright pejorative. But, yes, it /is/ hard to design a balanced game that's both easy to get into, and has great depth for the experienced player, and, no, it seems like 5e hasn't quite done it - it's been too busy threading a different needle: the delicate act of acceptability to hard-core fans vs appeal to new (casual/mainstream) fans. I'd say it'd be fair to be surprised that there aren't many more. Perhaps most of them are still playing PF? And if DPR were King, the fighter would be King, or at least still Lord @9th or Baronet or something... That's pretty fair, really. In 2nd, the fighter got a big boost in damage if they (ab)used specialization correctly, while some spells got damage caps, and each edition has loosened the limitations on casters (more spells, at-will spells, concentration check to avoid interruption, removing interruption entirely, easier handling of components, etc, etc... by 4e there were virtually no meaningful limitations on casting, ranged/area spells provoked just like ranged attacks was the main one - in 5e, that's gone - and don't start on 'Concentration' so some spells have a duration of 'concentration,' just like some 1e spells did, and much like 4e 'sustain' spells but without an action required to do so, just, if they'd be broken in 5e, you get a roll to keep 'em going, anyway). The wizard has been both those, and a major damage-dealer, and pretty near whatever else it wanted, through much of D&D's history. 4e tried to constrain the wizard to 'controller,' but even that was a muddy, double-dipped role that included area blasting, battlefield control (walls, zones &c), and direct 'hard' control - /and/ free access to the utility kit of Rituals. AC, hps, & DPR are all part of the same race-to-0-hps of simplistic combat analysis. And, yes, DPR is the biggest baddest variable in that calculation (well, really attacks/round is). That doesn't make it King, the local petty robber-Baron, perhaps, whom the actual King (magic) can dispatch at a moment's notice. ;P Seriously, though, the point is that the swing you can get in DPR with weapon, style & feat choices is a lot more significant than the +1 hp/level for having a d10 instead of d8 or the +1 AC from a shield. It's just math. ;) /Very simple/ math. ;| What? Like Combat Expertise? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The final word on DPR, feats and class balance
Top