D&D 5E cancelled 5e announcement at Gencon??? Anyone know anything about this?

[Mournblade94]

In other words, it depends on the players and DM either being ignorant of the issue or deliberately stepping around it.

Avoiding the issue doesn't make the issue not exist.

Incorrect.

Perhaps my DMing or play style did not make it an issue.

I did not come across this issue and I am not ignorant. I also did not deliberately step around it.

My fighters were ALWAYS awesome.

Except for Derenarth. HE was lame.

My first character, Basic D&D Fighter named Draco (Uggh I know I was 10), purely AWESOME. Got me hooked on D&D for life.

EVERYONE that I played (Note that I played with part) with who played fighters loved them.

 

[IronWolf]

In other words, it depends on the players and DM either being ignorant of the issue or deliberately stepping around it.

This simply isn't true.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Incorrect.

Perhaps my DMing or play style did not make it an issue.

I did not come across this issue and I am not ignorant. I also did not deliberately step around it.


them.

Let me try this a different way, for the first 4 years we played 2e with no problems then the first flgs opened and our group grew. First we met Chris (and I like blaming him) he played a wizard that did not need a team... Then we meet others that did the same (with clerics and psions)

When it was five friends around the table making friendly team members it was great... But when the style changed so did we. I remember we use to fight 3-5 kobolds then almost over night a dozen was not a challenge because we all made powerhouses... Then we hit multi and duil and everyone was a spellcaster.

If the problem never shows it is great, but when it starts there is no going back.

I even ran into it again in reverse in 4e, but that is a thread I want to start once I talk to Chris this weekend (and tell him he ruined d&d for us )

 

[Mournblade94]

Let me try this a different way, for the first 4 years we played 2e with no problems then the first flgs opened and our group grew. First we met Chris (and I like blaming him) he played a wizard that did not need a team... Then we meet others that did the same (with clerics and psions)

When it was five friends around the table making friendly team members it was great... But when the style changed so did we. I remember we use to fight 3-5 kobolds then almost over night a dozen was not a challenge because we all made powerhouses... Then we hit multi and duil and everyone was a spellcaster.

If the problem never shows it is great, but when it starts there is no going back.

I even ran into it again in reverse in 4e, but that is a thread I want to start once I talk to Chris this weekend (and tell him he ruined d&d for us )

I am not saying YOU could not have possibly had that problem, but I think you know that.

There are many groups I know for which it was not a problem. I did not think it was drastic enough to go the 4e route of complete balance. I am not a player that looks for balance either. That complete homage to balance is one (but not the absolute dealbreaker) of the reasons I departed ways.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I am not saying YOU could not have possibly had that problem, but I think you know that.

There are many groups I know for which it was not a problem. I did not think it was drastic enough to go the 4e route of complete balance. I am not a player that looks for balance either. That complete homage to balance is one (but not the absolute dealbreaker) of the reasons I departed ways.

I agree not 100% of people hit the problem, but in my experience (ymmv) a large % did ( and even 30%) is large.

Now IMO balance is both a pro and a con ( I am having a case study in the cons right now) but I think we need more fiding

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This simply isn't true.

So, you're saying that 3E wasn't so horrifically balanced that the designers didn't scrap the system and start fresh on a new D&D with game balance as the primary(or at the very least top 3) design goal?

It kinda goes against all the discussion that occurred during 3E's lifetime. I enjoyed the system while I was playing it, but I never lied to myself that it was within 10 miles of balanced.

 

[Imaro]

What goes beyond the truthiness of that statement was how epically 3E failed at delivering said Fighter.

... For you.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

... For you.

And I said so, before I had any inkling that they were making a new edition. They listened, and gave me the game and Fighter I was asking for. Its great.

 

[Mournblade94]

So, you're saying that 3E wasn't so horrifically balanced that the designers didn't scrap the system and start fresh on a new D&D with game balance as the primary(or at the very least top 3) design goal?

.

The designers scrapped the system and made one with balance as the primary goal, because the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Once again I never had a problem playing fighters. Pathfinder fixed the disparity as well, and did what I consider a better job of it.

And I said so, before I had any inkling that they were making a new edition. They listened, and gave me the game and Fighter I was asking for. Its great.

And wrongfully WOTC thought that was what every gamer wanted. Clearly they miscalculated.

 

[IronWolf]

So, you're saying that 3E wasn't so horrifically balanced that the designers didn't scrap the system and start fresh on a new D&D with game balance as the primary(or at the very least top 3) design goal?

That isn't what I said.

You said:

In other words, it depends on the players and DM either being ignorant of the issue or deliberately stepping around it.

And I said that is simply not true.

The 3.x system played fine for many, many groups without any significant issues. People had fun playing fighters and rangers and melee types all the time and right alongside wizards, sorcerors, clerics and druids. These people were not ignorant and these people were not deliberately stepping around it.

That is what I was saying.