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

[Mournblade94]

Moar denial.

Fine I am in Denial that whenever I played a fighter I had absolutely no fun. You have found me out. I am such an idiot!

Thankfully your sharp intellect has let me see the error of my ways and I am going to switch to a more balanced game because any game without balance cannot possibly be fun.

 

[jaerdaph]

You folks all realize it's just a game we're talking about here, right?

 

[Mournblade94]

That's a separate issue though. Throughout this thread and others, people have vehemently denied that the issue EXISTS at all, other than for some people. Imaro, for one, has repeatedly said that the issue never occured at his table or with his groups.

Yet, if it's purely a playstyle issue, why did Pathfinder fix it? If this is something that only happens if you play a certain way, why change the rules and not just say, "Don't play that way?"

If you change the rules to address an issue, then that issue was a recognized problem.

Whether you like one fix better than another fix is irrelavent to whether or not the problem exists in the first place.

Was the problem enough to warrant the 4e balance change? I think not, and that is what I am arguing.

In relation to your question, Paizo makes no claim to 'fix' anything regarding fighters vs. wizards. WHat they did do was make everyone better.

The argument boils down simply to whether balance is an issue for YOU or not. Balance is an issue for me in Warhammer 40K. It is not an issue for me in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

But in many high level campaigns I have played the Ranger able to occupy the Boss Wizard, and keep him from decimating the party.

Like Paizo I recognize that in an arena fight the fully prepared wizard will more likely beat the fighter. I do not however buy the wizard can do everythign I can do better. Sure if I want him to take on the thief role, then he is not the spell powerhouse he can be. There are many facets to this argument.

In fact I have no idea how it even came up in this thread.

 

[Mournblade94]

You folks all realize it's just a game we're talking about here, right?

I am in denial that D&D is not real.

 

[Pentius]

D&D is totally real. I can see the 4e Rules Compendium, the AD&D1e PHB, MM and DMG all sharing space right now, on my nightstand.

 

[jaerdaph]

i am in denial that d&d is not real.

black leaf no!!!...

 

[Mournblade94]

black leaf no!!!...

CHICK TRAX!!!!! Oh my god you went there!!!!!

 

[ahayford]

Fine I am in Denial that whenever I played a fighter I had absolutely no fun. You have found me out. I am such an idiot!

Thankfully your sharp intellect has let me see the error of my ways and I am going to switch to a more balanced game because any game without balance cannot possibly be fun.

He never said you were an idiot or that you could have no fun. He believes you are denying the class unbalance exists at all, when what you are really saying is it didn't bother you.

 

[Imaro]

That isn't what he said at all. He said he likes the balance that 4E gives him from a warrior/melee perspective. To categorically deny that Fighters and melees were underpowered compared to spell casters from a purely mechanics standpoint is ludicrous. You guys are just poking him knowing full well what he meens and arguing semantics.

You are all saying, ya but we don't care about the fact that the mechanics say my warriors is inferior in a stand up fight to this guys multiclasses mage/priest/psion. My warrior is awesome because I roleplay him awesome. We get it, so does he. Stop arguing semantics with him.

No he's been harping on the fact that 3.x/Pathfinder has problems in numerous posts in this thread... the fact of the matter is that some of us didn't experience these problems for whatever reasons... for others the cons of 4e outweigh any benefit the solving of these problems created. Either way if you're happy with your game why do you feel it's your duty to try and force us "ignorant" masses to acknowledge the faults 3.x/Pathfinder should have forced on us while we played and/or how we should be embracing 4e's fixes so we can have awesome fighters.

I've had "awesome" fighters in every edition. However 4e does have the distinction of being the only edition I lost a player due to the fighter becoming too complicated.

Edit: I wish Essentials had been around then...

 

[Hussar]

No he's been harping on the fact that 3.x/Pathfinder has problems in numerous posts in this thread... the fact of the matter is that some of us didn't experience these problems for whatever reasons... for others the cons of 4e outweigh any benefit the solving of these problems created. Either way if you're happy with your game why do you feel it's your duty to try and force us "ignorant" masses to acknowledge the faults 3.x/Pathfinder should have forced on us while we played and/or how we should be embracing 4e's fixes so we can have awesome fighters.

I've had "awesome" fighters in every edition. However 4e does have the distinction of being the only edition I lost a player due to the fighter becoming too complicated.

Edit: I wish Essentials had been around then...

But, again, good fix/bad fix is not what's being argued.

Throughout this thread you and others have been stating that there is no problem with the mechanics. That every edition, other than 4e, the fighter has no balance issues with the caster.

But, if that's true, shouldn't you be annoyed that Pathfinder fixed the power disparity? Whether someone likes the fix or not isn't the issue. You're claiming that the problem doesn't exist at all

Shouldn't the same criticism of 4e - that they are making fixes to problems that don't exist - apply equally to Pathfinder? I mean, if the problem didn't exist then no changes need to be made right?

For the past few years, people have been telling us that WOTC was fixing something that didn't need fixing. In this thread you can see the same claims being made. Yet, when Paizo fixes exactly the same issue, albeit in a different way, then the criticism changes from, "There is no problem that needs fixing" to "Well, Paizo fixed the problem in the right way".

So, which is it? Is there a problem in the 3.5e mechanics or not?