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

[GMforPowergamers]

Seems like a pretty extreme reaction to just one incident. How would the fighter/rogue have looked with a similar buff on him? Did you realize that sharing the buff spell with the wolf requires the wolf to remain within 5 feet or it loses the buff?

I do not remember the exact thing, but we had a rules lawyer in the game with his book open...so I am pretty sure we got it right.

The leadership feat is, undoubtedly, a potent one, particularly if the PC is geared to have a high leadership score. And in this case, you picked a cohort that
includes an additional figure to boot.

yes, and the tim wasn;t the issue, the power was.

But keeping the lower level druid in a support position, casting buffs and heals rather than charging in, could cut your focus time down to a more equal level as well.

but our problem is that it was eaiser to take a new feat, and have the fruif stay at camp...

 

[Mournblade94]

So anyway, that's the setup for play in which the focus is not exploration, but rather hurling the PCs headlong into conflicts that resonate with the thematic concerns of the players. This is what I think 4e does better than any previous version of D&D.

But suppose, instead, that a group wants to run a game more oriented towards the exploration of a fictional setting - where "immersion, as if in a fantasy novel" is the key. Well, PoL doesn't support that very well at all - becaue the stuff that the PCs are most obviously suited to explore isn't in the material provided to the GM. Where was Bael Turath? What about Akhosia? Where, exactly, are all the fey crossings? The sorts of details that don't matter if the map is just a backdrop for play that is concerned with something else, suddenly turn out to be missing once exploration of the setting becomes the main focus of play.

Thank you that was a good explanation.

I think there is a misapprehension here, or perhaps an implicit expression of a strong preference for simulationist rather than metagame mechanics.

It's true that the player of a 4e fighter has powers to use in the game, just as does the player of a 4e wizard (and putting Essentials to one side for the moment). But it doesn't follow that within the fiction, the fighter PC has "powers" like the wizard PC does. The wizard PC is casting spells that are (in at least some cases) inscribed in a spellbook, and presumably were learned as distinct techniques from a mentor wise in the ways of arcae formulae. Within the gameworld, people would look at what the wizard is doing and say "Look at the spells she knows! She has mastered many magical powers!"

The fighter, on the other hand, is using a variety of techniques. And observers within the gameworld could well say "Look at the range of techniques she has mastered!" But the game does not assume - and indeed, tends to deny - that there is any one-to-one correlation between the techniques that the fictional persona has mastered, and the powers listed on the character sheet, to which the player of the fighter has access as part of the action resolution mechanics. In this respect, the rules for fighters are very different from those for wizards, which do assume excactly that sort of one-to-one correlation.


So 4e's "solution" to the fighter/wizard problem is, in fact, similar to that adopted in the Buffy game (as I understand it) - namely, wizards get magical powers, but the players of fighter PCs get access to metagame benefits to compensate. It's just that in 4e those metagame benefits are mechanically encoded in the same fashion as are the wizard's spells. The difference between them is not expressed at the mechanical level - it can only be appreciated by thinking about the contrast between what is happening, mechanically, at the table, and what this means for the fiction.

I would agree, my statement was intended to reflect on the mechanics and not the narrative

This is another reason why 4e is not particularly well-suited for the exploration-heavy play that many D&D players seem traditionally to have gone in for, because that sort of play is undermined by a strong separation of the mechanics from the fiction. The flip side is that it is precisely this greater use of metagame mechanics in 4e that suits it for non-simulationist, overt-agenda-driven play - because these metagame mechanics give the players points of leverage in the game to inject their own priorities and thereby shape the fiction, rather than just immersing in the fiction and seeing where it takes them.

I would agree with that 100%!

Many thanks for your time.

 

[Mournblade94]

Paizo never really "fixed" anything, they threw on some minor patches and a fresh coat of paint. The core problems still exist but that was enough for some because they found comfort in those inequities and structure.

The problem was addressed, and that core problem was reduced. That is all I wanted.

WotC actually fixed most of the issues by making a better playing system. In doing so they made the game more socially balanced, which also didn't appeal to some but did to many others.

I do not feel that WOTC made a better playing system.

Saying they "nerfed wizards completely" is ridiculous to anyone who has actually ever played the system who isn't a sociopath.

I am definitely a sociopath. I could not kill my last victim because I forgot to clean out my freezer, from the last two victims. They liked playing elves. I don't like peopel that play elves. I took care of them, they will never play elves again.

 

[Mournblade94]

I have been considering lately, if it was more a DM than a player issue. Since around '90, I have been almost exclusively the DM. While there was little doubt in our groups that wizards were grossly overpowered in PvP if prepared properly (we ran DungeonHacks, 6 vs 6 in magical arenas as a bi-annual thing for years, and it was always the wizard(s) who won the battles), it was never a big issue in my campaigns, even though I mostly allowed just about anything.

With 3.x, I had to ban a couple of prestige classes and feats (if memory serves me), and it was still not a big deal. However, once, one of my players (our original DM) wanted to run a 3.x campaign on his own (we had previously run one together, with 2 DM's) and I made a druid.

Around level 14 we called it quits, my character, while not CO-optimized, was still so far ahead of anyone else in the party, that it seemed that they mattered little. One night, the cleric and my druid took on what the DM had prepared for the whole party (of 5) and managed not only to deal with things, but essentially we breezed through. Sure, it required some good planning and such, but the druid was just so flexible and had so many tools at his disposal that it was ridiculous.

Most of all, they all remember Bobo, the flying bear who grappled dragons to death.

In short. I think it would never have been such an issue in my campaign, but the DM proved incapable of setting things up so that my druid couldn't handle things on his own. So if others out there have had DM's like him, I can completely understand why they would think that it was horribly broken. Please do note that I am NOT saying that everyone who thinks things were broken had a lousy DM.

Cheers

This experience would almost mirror my own except I tended to play human and elven rangers when I was the player. I would agree however that it is an issue that a DM can curtail. I can only give you an XP no prize because apparently I have been handing out too much XP. If anyone wants to help please do.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I disagree.

If someone else says "the system was always a problem" then "I've never had a problem" is a valid counter - because if the alternate view states an absolute then counter-examples can disprove that absolute (or at least make rational debaters consider that there are alternatives to their position
Regards,

my problem is that it comes off (to me) as a "too bad for you" when people say it.

Imagin it was a vedio game, and 28.5% of all players had there system crash when playing spell casters above level 7.

The company put out a sequel were the problem was fix, by lowering the amount of system requirments for the spellcasters (taking away some power and choices) and we were on a game web site about that...

Poster a: I hate the new game, they needed my wizard and cleric

Poster b: they made it so I could play it

Poster a well not EVERYONE had that problem


At what point do you except a company fixed a problem that may not effect you but did others in a bad way.?

 

[Mournblade94]

People criticize Wizards all the time for the same type of the "play style issues" in 4E. Admittedly, they aren't as drastic but still there are stupid design decisions that they have made that you can fix but aren't in the rules.

Actually you are invoking logical fallacies which is why people are harping on you for actually saying this. As I said before I've never had a problem with the system therefore no problem exists has never actually been a valid argument no matter what you are talking about. Its pretty much flat out denial.

If it will make you feel better I will agree with you. You have won. COngratulations.

Meanwhile you might note that I never claimed your logical fallacy.

What I claimed was I did not feel it needed the drastic fix.

 

[Pentius]

I have been considering lately, if it was more a DM than a player issue. Since around '90, I have been almost exclusively the DM. While there was little doubt in our groups that wizards were grossly overpowered in PvP if prepared properly (we ran DungeonHacks, 6 vs 6 in magical arenas as a bi-annual thing for years, and it was always the wizard(s) who won the battles), it was never a big issue in my campaigns, even though I mostly allowed just about anything.

With 3.x, I had to ban a couple of prestige classes and feats (if memory serves me), and it was still not a big deal. However, once, one of my players (our original DM) wanted to run a 3.x campaign on his own (we had previously run one together, with 2 DM's) and I made a druid.

Around level 14 we called it quits, my character, while not CO-optimized, was still so far ahead of anyone else in the party, that it seemed that they mattered little. One night, the cleric and my druid took on what the DM had prepared for the whole party (of 5) and managed not only to deal with things, but essentially we breezed through. Sure, it required some good planning and such, but the druid was just so flexible and had so many tools at his disposal that it was ridiculous.

Most of all, they all remember Bobo, the flying bear who grappled dragons to death.

In short. I think it would never have been such an issue in my campaign, but the DM proved incapable of setting things up so that my druid couldn't handle things on his own. So if others out there have had DM's like him, I can completely understand why they would think that it was horribly broken. Please do note that I am NOT saying that everyone who thinks things were broken had a lousy DM.

Cheers

See, I'm sure the DM could have set things up so I couldn't handle it on my own. He began musing about such ways, and joked about a couple that could have been entries on Hussar's list of "stuff modules to do deal with casters". I recall, in particular, "Well, with Rusting Grasp, Stone Shape, Warp Wood and Repel Wood, I really need to stop including anything in this world that's made out of stone, wood or metal." I responded with, "I retire this character."

Those examples, those are the arms race I mentioned. When I play, I want to be engaging the fiction. Time spent wondering what spells the DM has found reasons(natural or contrived) to protect the setting against, wondering if any creative application of my character abilities could bring the game to a halt, these things get in the way of engaging the fiction, for me.

 

[Wicht]

I almost hate to wade into the whole caster argument (not a problem in any game I ever ran) but I really have to start to wonder if the problem is DMs who allow all the caster's strengths but don't also play to any of their weaknesses? This also gets to the whole 15 minute day thing (again something that I, as a DM, can't imagine ever being a problem) and not forcing players to face the consequences of their actions in a meaningful way. So the caster can take out a whole squad of troops before the fighter ever draws their sword. Fine. But what can they do for an encore? Most games I've ran, the wizards learned to pace themselves with the fighters, because burning out fast meant they were good for nothing as the dangers continued to press in.

I believe that there were those who had problems with casters, but I am not convinced it was the rules at fault.

Also for a look at a high level product/module where casters were not nerfed up front (and in fact we tried to make high level abilities a prerequisite for participation), I humbly offer Coliseum Morpheounhttp://paizo.com/store/byCompany/c/cubicle7/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8gph for your consideration.

 

[Mournblade94]

I almost hate to wade into the whole caster argument (not a problem in any game I ever ran) but I really have to start to wonder if the problem is DMs who allow all the caster's strengths but don't also play to any of their weaknesses? This also gets to the whole 15 minute day thing (again something that I, as a DM, can't imagine ever being a problem) and not forcing players to face the consequences of their actions in a meaningful way. So the caster can take out a whole squad of troops before the fighter ever draws their sword. Fine. But what can they do for an encore? Most games I've ran, the wizards learned to pace themselves with the fighters, because burning out fast meant they were good for nothing as the dangers continued to press in.

I believe that there were those who had problems with casters, but I am not convinced it was the rules at fault.

Also for a look at a high level product/module where casters were not nerfed up front (and in fact we tried to make high level abilities a prerequisite for participation), I humbly offer Coliseum Morpheoun for your consideration.

I pretty much have to agree with everything there. The 15 minute adventuring day is really against the spirit of the rules.

With Pathfinder I have found the New Powerhouse to be the paladin. Maybe it is just because I ran Curse of the Crimson Throne, but my god the Paladin was the reason everyone pulled through.

Demilich? Feh. Undead. Smite Evil, all DR Gone X2 Paladin level first strike dmg bonus.

Shadow Dragon? Feh. Evil Dragon. Smite evil, all DR gone X2 Paladin level first strike

Lady Sabina's Black Dragon: Combat lasted 2 rounds.

Queen Illeosa? Paladin wrecked her.

Actually the Shadow dragon battle was great because the smite evil was enough to lower the dragon's HP to below the dmg threshold of a saved Disintigrate from the wizard.

It was like Queen Ileosa made all fo her plans for the old world. Now there is this newfangled Paladin who comes in and thwarts everything.

It also helps that the AP is rigged with the Celestial Armor and Selethtial.

My god the Paladin was just a decimator.

Divine weapon Bond, and smite evil is SWEET. Wizard go home!

 

[haakon1]

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.

Nod, I've played a Fighter and/or Paladin in AD&D, 3e, 3.5e, and 4e (never played much 2e).

I loved it in every edition but 4e, because in 4e, everyone is the equivalent of a 3e Sorcerer (never a popular class with my groups) -- just casts the same set of spells over and over. My 4e Paladin essentially casts a spell of "hit with sword with this variation to the usual because he's standing next to foes" versus "hit with sword against a different defense" versus "hit with sword but kinda like an automatic crit if he hits" just makes him seem a shorter-range version of MU to me. Different classes cast different spells in 4e, but the mechanic for them all is the sorcerer mechanic, IMHO.

Somehow, I just miss the days when Fighter were Fighters, Thieves were Thieves, and sheep were scared because we could Cleave or Backstab them all day long, while the MU's ran out of gas after doing their cool stuff for too long.

To me, that was a form of "Balance" -- Fighters are probably better at lower levels, and don't run out of gas (other than hit points), while MU's are superweak at lower levels, probably better at high levels, but always more likely to be killed and having to manage resources more carefully. Which was equally true in AD&D and 3x, one of the many ways they had the same flavor from my POV, whereas 4e just doesn't.

But the main form of balance in any edition of D&D is "sometimes you get to be the center of attention, other times your friends are". I don't keep count of who was having more glory, and I suspect complaints that it's the other guy are just petulence at not always being the star, like a star hitter who doesn't like it when the pitcher's accomplishments are lauded. D&D is a team sport, and there's no "I" in party!

To me, 4e "balance" was a chimera problem they were trying to solve, and they succeeded at what they were trying to do, but only by leeching the flavor out of all the non-MU classes, leaving a bland sameness for all classes.