Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[Imaro]

And there's no version of D&D that can't develop a power gap. So why is this an issue for 3E? It's not different; it's a persistent complaint about 4E and not about 3E, so obviously people feel 4E works differently here than 3E.

Emphasis mine: I've been thinking this... how is there not a power gap when an uber optimized 4e Ranger dishes out way more damage than a non-optimized warlock, gets more skills and is effective at close and long range. How is he not the Angel Summoner of strikers and the non-optimized warlock BMX bandit?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So your personal issues are too important to just be personal issues.

Aren't everybody's on the internet?

And there's no version of D&D that can't develop a power gap. So why is this an issue for 3E? It's not different; it's a persistent complaint about 4E and not about 3E, so obviously people feel 4E works differently here than 3E.

Each edition can develop a power gap, I never said they couldn't. IME, the gap in all editions except 3E was managable. Even 3E was managable up to a certain point in the expansion line.

Emphasis mine: I've been thinking this... how is there not a power gap when an uber optimized 4e Ranger dishes out way more damage than a non-optimized warlock, gets more skills and is effective at close and long range. How is he not the Angel Summoner of strikers and the non-optimized warlock BMX bandit?

Because BMX Bandit is completely worthless when he teams with Angel Summoner. An optimized 4E ranger does not outshine a non-optimized 4E warlock to the point of uselessness. He may outshine a purposefully-gimped 4E warlock, but if a player is willing to make choices that actively make his character bad (low prime stats, training in skills that he has low stats in, choosing feats that help him swing a sword better when his only sword attack is a weak basic attack, etc) then I doubt he will care if he's outclassed and if he does care then I'll guide him away from bad choices.

In 3E the non-optimizers in our group were not actively trying to make bad characters.

 

[Argyle King]

.

In 3E the non-optimizers in our group were not actively trying to make bad characters.

While I personally would agree that the rails (for a lack of better words) of 4E tend to be a slightly better guide and do tend to keep things more in the same ballpark, I would also say I've seen plenty of people in my 4E group end up with 'bad characters' without trying. I've even fallen victim to it myself when I was a new player. It's not something I feel is unique to 3rd Edition -even if I find myself agreeing that the potential for power disparity was more easily greater in the previous edition.

 

[prosfilaes]

Each edition can develop a power gap, I never said they couldn't. IME, the gap in all editions except 3E was managable. Even 3E was managable up to a certain point in the expansion line.

I'm not sure I buy it. Comparing a 1e fighter and 1e wizard comes up with the same basic issues as a 3e fighter and wizard. In any case, the point was that you dismissed the repeated boardgame-like feel as being possible in any game (though it only comes up in complaints about 4e), but you'll admit that the power gap comes up in every game, but somehow it only matters in one.

 

[Imaro]

Because BMX Bandit is completely worthless when he teams with Angel Summoner. An optimized 4E ranger does not outshine a non-optimized 4E warlock to the point of uselessness. He may outshine a purposefully-gimped 4E warlock, but if a player is willing to make choices that actively make his character bad (low prime stats, training in skills that he has low stats in, choosing feats that help him swing a sword better when his only sword attack is a weak basic attack, etc) then I doubt he will care if he's outclassed and if he does care then I'll guide him away from bad choices.

In 3E the non-optimizers in our group were not actively trying to make bad characters.

You sir must not be aware of the amount of damage a fully optimized ranger can put out... it makes even an optimized warlock look pathetic... so yeah imagine what it does to a warlock that's made casually... and again, the ranger and rogue (who also is a better striker than the Warlock damage wise) have more skills than the warlock.

I mean isn't this exactly the same situation some people claimed about CoDzilla at high level.... that an optimized Cleric/Druid, who selected his spells to fulfill the fighter's role was a better fighter than the fighter. The ranger and to a lesser extent the rogue fulfill the role of striker better than a warlock does. In all honesty, even a fighter in 4e (whose suppose to be a defender) if built right can easily out damage a warlock... and defend.

I guess there's an argument that the warlock will have the arcana skill... but then BMX bandit had a bike and Angel Summoner didn't...

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm not sure I buy it. Comparing a 1e fighter and 1e wizard comes up with the same basic issues as a 3e fighter and wizard. In any case, the point was that you dismissed the repeated boardgame-like feel as being possible in any game (though it only comes up in complaints about 4e), but you'll admit that the power gap comes up in every game, but somehow it only matters in one.

1E had the checks and balances of different XP charts, less spells per day and static saving throw charts. A 1E wizard was not gauranteed success like a power-gamed 3E wizard with inflated save DCs. In addition, I've already said that we didn't have a power gap in 3E because of CoDzilla in our group. None of my players exhibited the ability to create one. The disparity was in the skill level of my players to build characters of too widely varying power.

I've been hearing the boardgame complaint (or some variation thereof) since the days of OD&D. The complaint usually came from someone who played a different game and had an elitist attitude that their game does things better and that D&D is a mere boardgame. The complaint became more common and less elitist with the start of 3E and certainly has increased with the concept of forced movement in 4E. IME the board game feel is easily remedied in every edition merely by not running your game as a board game. That's second nature to any experienced DM.

I did not say the power gap only matters in 3E. I said it was the only edition to date where I found the effort to close the gap not worth it anymore. I put the effort in for a long time before deciding it wasn't worth it. Lest you think me a rabid 4E fanboi, I assure you I came to this conclusion before 4E was announced.

You sir must not be aware of the amount of damage a fully optimized ranger can put out... it makes even an optimized warlock look pathetic... so yeah imagine what it does to a warlock that's made casually... and again, the ranger and rogue (who also is a better striker than the Warlock damage wise) have more skills than the warlock.

And you must not be aware that the optimized ranger in our current group is really good at dishing out damage, but my warlock is better in his secondary role of controller. My character still contributes. The ranger never ends an encounter before I can make a worthwhile contribution.

Edit: Also, I'm sure many people here read my complaint about 3E power gap and picture me whining that another player's character was better than mine. The issue comes from the DM's seat for me. I could not find a way to satisfactorily challenge the high power characters in the group without overchallenging the lower power characters. I could not find a way to satisfactorily challenge the lower power characters in the group without underchallenging the higher power characters. I'm sure other have found ways around this that satisfy them, but I could not. I'm sure Bryon will come back around and tell me it's because I suck as a DM.

I guess there's an argument that the warlock will have the arcana skill... but then BMX bandit had a bike and Angel Summoner didn't...

My warlock also aces every social encounter we have while the ranger's best chance at diplomacy is to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The warlock isn't about pure DPS. It's more like a hybrid striker/controller. The damage numbers may not be super high but the side effects of the attacks can be pretty sweet. The warlock also has good mobility with teleports some powers that make him more durable.

 

[pemerton]

If you WANT to be all about optimized destrcution machines blowing through foes without significant regard to story, then 3E can do that as well.

I think that your description of play where the power gap appears - "all about optimized destrcution machines blowing through foes without significant regard to story" - isn't fair. I can easily see a story-focused game having a power gap: one where the players advocate for their characters, give their characters interesting goals and strong motivations to achieve them, and the DM creates challenging obstacles between the PCs and their goals.

I agree with LostSoul here. Rolemaster can have a similar problem to 3E in terms of the martial/magic power gap - although it perhaps also has more mechanical resources to address them, just because there are so many points of contact where RM's rules can be tweaked, and so many optional rules in print that do various bit and pieces of that tweaking.

I discovered this about Rolemaster in just the sort of game that LostSoul describes.

In Rolemaster, it's further complicated by the fact that the "overpowered" magic can also be central to the way in which a PC mechanically expresses the player's conception of the character (this is especially true for Sorcerers and Mystics, I think). Which means that in trying to deal with the mechanical issues you have to juggle with the issue of not undermining the players' conception of his/her PC. I personally haven't experienced this being such a big issue in D&D (in part because D&D doesn't have spell lists like RM), but I'd find it easy to believe that others have.

 

[pemerton]

how is there not a power gap when an uber optimized 4e Ranger dishes out way more damage than a non-optimized warlock, gets more skills and is effective at close and long range. How is he not the Angel Summoner of strikers and the non-optimized warlock BMX bandit?

my warlock is better in his secondary role of controller. My character still contributes. The ranger never ends an encounter before I can make a worthwhile contribution.

<snip>

My warlock also aces every social encounter we have while the ranger's best chance at diplomacy is to shoot first and ask questions later.

In addition to what VB says, I feel that the warlock has more "story power" overall - after all, s/he is the one how has a pact with an otherworldly being! Whereas the ranger has a bow. (I'm not saying it would be impossible, or even difficult, to build a ranger PC with story traction as well, but the class doesn't have it built in like the warlock does.)

At least in my game, the bigger issue is actually from the chaos sorcerer-Demonskin Adept. Good striker damage. Good social skills. And a lot of story "oomph" (I mean, the guy wears leathers made from the skins of the demons he's killed - and when he gets to 16th level is going to start having periodic glimpses of the heart of the Abyss).

 

[BryonD]

My point was that you can never encounter something in a game by approaching the game in a specific way, even if that "something" is part of the game. In other words, even though PC death is part of AD&D, that doesn't mean PC death must be part of everyone's game.

I think you agree - if you approach the game one way, you'll see the power gap; in another way, you won't.

Have I ever argued against this point? I've stated multiple times that I know and accept that some people DO see the problem. The statement has been made that the gap automatically happens. I'm saying that is not true.

If the gap automatically happens, then your statement "in another way, you won't" is false. We both agree your statement is true. That's my point.

I agree with that, though I think that your description of play where the power gap appears - "all about optimized destrcution machines blowing through foes without significant regard to story" - isn't fair. I can easily see a story-focused game having a power gap: one where the players advocate for their characters, give their characters interesting goals and strong motivations to achieve them, and the DM creates challenging obstacles between the PCs and their goals.

I was describing what I thought of as a desirable style of play which could create a need for a real effort in order to avoid the issue.