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

[Wicht]

Well, maybe's it's an inherent inclarity in the English language, but "saw no need" would mean you don't even acknowledge that others did have complaints. Again, that's why such statements sound like they deny the problem exists or is genuine for anyone.

I never had a problem with THAC0, but I would never have said "I had no problem with THAC0, so I saw no need for the changes." I can "see the need" for changes because I know that other people didn't like THAC0 as an unnecessarily complicated way to calculate attacks, even if I didn't particularly care.

And even if I cared so much about THAC0 that I hated that 3e introduced BAB in its place, I still wouldn't have said "I didn't have a problem with THAC0 so I didn't see the need", because that would be telling other people who saw the need that their complaints were less than genuine.

It just seems that "I didn't have a problem with X so I don't see the need to change X" is not a helpful statement for any value of X. It is almost always going to make the person saying it appear condescending to those who do perceive an issue with X, and does nothing to explain why the speaker is dissatisfied with the changes.

Hrm, I thought I acknowledged that others might have a problem and like the changes. Let me be clear: Others might have had problems and liked the changes and they are perfectly within their rights to do so. No condescension is meant nor should be understood to be implied. I do think that it is perfectly possible to run a game of 3e/PF without having any difficulties with wizards and find it a bit offputting to be told that the only reason I don't have a problem is I am doing it wrong. I would prefer to think the people without the problem are probably using the game as intended and that it suits their needs and styles very well. I also tend to agree with those who suggest the wizard problem is not as systemic as some would like to think it is. That is: I would tend to believe most 3e games did not have the problem. (But I admit I have not played in most 3e games and may be mistaken.

I saw no need for the changes in my game and furthermore thought that the mechanical changes, combined with the fluff changes, made the game unpalatable for my particular breed of Dungeons and Dragons. I am not sure why I need to explain my distaste beyond this, and doing so is likely to be less than productive and lead this thread off into a worse back and forth that fails to go anywhere, as it seems very hard for people not to begin arguments about matters of taste.

 

[Wicht]

Could you expand this and explain some of the ways a DM might balance/control overpowered casters?

And more specificly, what weaknesses you see in casters.

Sure... why not.

First off, casters have a limited selection of spells at their disposal at anyone time, especially arcane casters. They cannot be prepared for everything all at the same time. At any one time, they may be able to replace a rogue, a fighter, or what have you, but only a few times a day, and rarely can they do everything well. Scenarios should exploit this by having a variety of challenges. The "what ifs" that people throw about, to demonstrate how a caster can be superior always assumes a perfect selection of spells for every situation. In most of my in-game experience, casters end up with spells that are the wrong spell for a situation and rarely have the perfect compliment of spells for every situation.

Secondly, casters have glass jaws, especially, again, arcane casters. Intelligent monsters should target casters early and often, when they are identified. Force the melee types to work to defend the casters. Casters are powerful, but without melee support, they are easily taken out with a few good hits, especially at high levels.

Thirdly, Casters have a limit on spells per day, and in situations where there is a need to press forward, casters who do not pace themselves become dead weight on the party. In most of my high level games, the casters do learn to pace themselves, rarely run out of spells before the end of the day, and contribute meaningfully in most situations. But they do not dominate because they are pacing themselves so they can be helpful for longer. They also tend to want something to fall back on, in case of danger during the night (especially important when teleportation is not an option.)

Just a few thoughts... take them for what they are worth.

 

[technoextreme]

There are courses you can take that will aid you in seeing that YOU are arguing from a fallacious position. You certainly have no water tight case. Perhaps you should explore philosophy more.

Nope. Trying to generalize from a case of two to three is something that generally gets you laughed at if you try to do it in any other context. Also, its a game which lends itself to easy analysis of the rules which makes these assertions even more hilarious.

Clearly with Pathfinder taking off so well, the caster fighter disparity is not unplayable. I agree they did not drastically fix the disparity and that is my point. They did not need to, as is proven by the following Pathfinder currently exhibits.

Thanks for criticizing my use of logic when you just made an argument that is the equivalent of saying that the Twilight movies are some of the greatest pieces of cinema because they managed to break box office records.

If that was 'fixing the problem' then why the Hell would I want the problem fixed? The reason to play a game, be it Clue, D&D, or Kill Dr. Lucky is to have fun.

So you can have more people who would want to play the game than just the people who sunk in a significant amount of time and money getting the game to work? That and I've never actually hear anything all that convincing here that there was a significant change or anything from 3.5E to 4E.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Similarly, when people talk about linear fighters/quadratic wizards (LFQW), what is the point of saying "Well I never experienced that problem"?

So the analogy is not "my grandfather smoked for 70 years, therefore smoking cigarettes isn't a problem". The analogy is "my grandfather only drove while drunk and he was always crashing the car; therefore there's something wrong with the design of the car".

The 15MAD/early-onset-LFQW is only a problem in a very specific and very narrow and very inflexible style of play. (It also, IMO, carries with it several significant problems beyond the mere mechanical exploits it allows.)

In the case of 4E, the attempt to "fix the car" so that people could drive it drunk resulted in a system which, IMO, made the car far less effective when driving it sober. Since I don't drive drunk, I don't have a problem with my existing car and "upgrading" to a car which would allow me to drive drunk while seriously debilitating the utility of the car while driving it sober just doesn't have any appeal to me.

Thanks for criticizing my use of logic when you just made an argument that is the equivalent of saying that the Twilight movies are some of the greatest pieces of cinema because they managed to break box office records.

Uh. No. Mournblade didn't say, "It's clear that Pathfinder is the greatest game ever made because they're selling really well." He said, "Clearly with Pathfinder taking off so well, the caster fighter disparity is not unplayable."

The analogy you're looking for here is, "Twilight's box office demonstrates that the movies are not literally unwatchable." Which is self-evidently true.

So you can have more people who would want to play the game than just the people who sunk in a significant amount of time and money getting the game to work.

It is, I think, specifically the loss of utility and the significant shift in gameplay in 4E that you're overlooking. If 4E had found a way to fix the problem a limited subset of gamers were having WITHOUT throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it wouldn't have suffered the same backlash.

 

[Beginning of the End]

No he is not saying that at all. Your really holding on to this tightly.

Hussar's been holding onto that tightly for years. He hears what he wants to hear and ignores everything else.

Folks, the rudeness has been dealt with. - PCat

The only thing you need in order for the 15MAD/early-onset-LFQW not to be a problem is a mildly reactive world which isn't put on PAUSE whenever the players aren't looking at it.

Adventures with imposed time-based deadlines are one way to achieve a reactive world, but other methods include:

- Proactive opponents (reinforcing positions, sending retaliation squads, changing plans, abandoning hideouts, destroying evidence, making new alliances, etc.)

- NPC Competition (stealing the rewards, winning the acclaim, etc.)

- Competing interests (do we need to choose between X and Y, or can we try to accomplish both?)

- Demanding support cast (you need me to rescue your cat? but I just used all my spells to nova that fight with the goblins!)

- A variety of long-term and short-term goals

- A mixture of unexpected challenge types

And, of course, all of that is really just scratching the surface. Pretty much anything which creates a short-term demand or uncertainty will do the trick.

This is usually the point where Hussar tries to dismiss all of that as the spellcasters somehow "dictating" the content of adventures. But, frankly, these are just the characteristics of good adventure design. You should be doing this stuff in D&D, Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, or any other RPG you're playing. The whole "all the monsters sit in their rooms and wait for the adventurers to kick down the door" thing isn't really a style of play you should be clinging to as if it were the holy grail of gaming, IMO.

If that's all you want out of your gaming, you should go play Diablo. (And I don't mean that in a dismissive fashion: I mean that CRPGs are literally much, much better at delivering that style of play.)

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I do think that it is perfectly possible to run a game of 3e/PF without having any difficulties with wizards and find it a bit offputting to be told that the only reason I don't have a problem is I am doing it wrong.

Wicht, you may perceive that people are telling you that you are playing wrong, but apparently 4E fans are narrow, inflexible, problematic, and drunk:

The 15MAD/early-onset-LFQW is only a problem in a very specific and very narrow and very inflexible style of play. (It also, IMO, carries with it several significant problems beyond the mere mechanical exploits it allows.)

In the case of 4E, the attempt to "fix the car" so that people could drive it drunk resulted in a system which, IMO, made the car far less effective when driving it sober. Since I don't drive drunk, I don't have a problem with my existing car and "upgrading" to a car which would allow me to drive drunk while seriously debilitating the utility of the car while driving it sober just doesn't have any appeal to me.

I can't speak for everyone that has commented, Wicht, but I do not think, nor have I meant to imply that you avoid any problems other may have had as you playing wrong.

My problems with 3E do not stem from the 15MAD or disparity in power between casters and non-casters. But I did have problems with power gap. Byron and now BotE claim that I'm "doing it wrong" otherwise I would not encounter the problem like they did. That since I am the one with the problem it must be me "playing drunk" and couldn't possibly be the system.

I do see the problem I had with 3E as systemic. How many people do you see here that call for the solution of banning presitge classes, feats, whole splat books? I've personally seen alot. I've even been told I'm "doing it wrong" by allowing official splat books. Yet, the splats were part of the system by design. Something the developers expected you to use. I'm not saying anyone who didn't use them was wrong, but neither are those of us who did use them. And the system, especially open multiclassing in my experience, failed the add-on of the new books. I have not yet experienced that issue with 4E. I'm not saying it's the right edition for everyone, but it fixed one of my deal-breakers for me.

 

[IronWolf]

I can't speak for everyone that has commented, Wicht, but I do not think, nor have I meant to imply that you avoid any problems other may have had as you playing wrong.

My problems with 3E do not stem from the 15MAD or disparity in power between casters and non-casters. But I did have problems with power gap. Byron and now BotE claim that I'm "doing it wrong" otherwise I would not encounter the problem like they did. That since I am the one with the problem it must be me "playing drunk" and couldn't possibly be the system.

I will state up front that I certainly do not think you are playing it wrong.

And I do think you've raised a point that is separate from what a lot of folks have been discussing in this thread. It sounds like you are talking power disparity that develops between skilled and less skilled players of the game, right?

I have seen similar things though I don't think I would go as far to say the system is broken. I've seen a druid who by all rights should be a pretty effective force be much less so. I've seen perfectly fine, functional characters suddenly leap in power when played by someone more versed in the system when they had to miss a session - both melee and caster alike.

I liken it to more like two mis-matched chess players - one with considerable skill versus one that only plays occasionally. Things will be quite lopsided, but it is player skill that differs, not that the rules of chess are broken.

Of course this is more a case of is system mastery rewarded? I believe there is a Monte Cook essay that says there is some of that in 3.x, where system mastery is rewarded. It doesn't necessarily mean the system is broken though. And it doesn't mean that methodology is the answer for everyone.

It is quite possible the current D&D system has lessened the effect of system mastery. Some people are apt to prefer that over one that rewards system mastery. Neither system is necessarily broken though. They just cater to different tastes in what a person wants from a game.

And neither taste is wrong or people playing the game wrong. We play to have fun so choose the system that you find fun!

 

[wrecan]

wrecan: Similarly, when people talk about linear fighters/quadratic wizards (LFQW), what is the point of saying "Well I never experienced that problem"?

Beginning of the End: So the analogy is not "my grandfather smoked for 70 years, therefore smoking cigarettes isn't a problem".

I have no idea how you concluded that from the sentence of mine you quoted. The analogy is not D&D:smoking. The analogy is the specific quote I cited above concerning one person's play experience to an argument made about smoking being safe for one person.

Beginning of the End: The 15MAD/early-onset-LFQW is only a problem in a very specific and very narrow and very inflexible style of play.

Even if true, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

 

[MrGrenadine]

Like I said I didn't have the 15MAD problem in 3E, nor the caster problem. But I can see where others are coming from. You admit that the stakes must be high enough. But how far do you push this? You can't force the players to believe that the stakes are high enough as that would be railroading. So they could decide, as a group even, that none of your stakes are important to them, that their desire to nova/rest/repeat is greater than any stakes you place on them. The system allows them to do this. What is the ultimate end to this game of chicken? The damsel dies? So what, we nova/rest/repeat. A powerful godling is released? So what, he seems nice enough, we nova/rest/repeat. You took too long to respond, now the world is destroyed, the end. There is nothing stopping a group of players from doing the 15MAD if that is what they are determined to do. And when you blow up the world as DM, I'm pretty sure all involved will be left dissatisfied. This is of course an extreme angle, I understand, but it can outline what happens when friends get together and have different playstyle expectations.

Its not a railroad if the party can do whatever they want, and there are other choices.

If they choose not to save the damsel, then she dies, yes. And then we get to see what happens after that--maybe the townsfolk take it upon themselves to take care of the cultists. Maybe the local authority, (a Duke or something), hears of the cultists and sends a force to squash them. Perhaps a full blown war breaks out! Or, maybe nothing happens. Hell, the party could leave that part of the world and never return, so whats it to them? But that story continues, and that part of the world will be changed if the party ever deigns to revisit it.

And if the party chooses not to follow an adventuring lead, and the result is that the world is somehow destroyed? I think that would be an odd choice, since it seems to me that the party missed out on the most interesting thing happening in their world there. At the very least, I think its reasonable to assume that both players and characters would want to avert such a thing, but if the world is destroyed, then so be it. Snakes on a plane.

There are other worlds. Roll 4d6 and drop the lowest.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

And I do think you've raised a point that is separate from what a lot of folks have been discussing in this thread. It sounds like you are talking power disparity that develops between skilled and less skilled players of the game, right?

Yes. But moreso in building a character than tactics in-game. Each character could have a gap determined by who was playing the character that week, but I found the gap managable at that level. But two Fighters made by two different players (or one Fighter and amalgamation of classes and prestige classes more often IME) typically varied to the point where I could not challenge one without over- or under-challenging the other. Not in a way that satisfied our group's varied playstyles.

I have seen similar things though I don't think I would go as far to say the system is broken.

In my circumstance it does not matter whether the system is considered broken or not. The problem caused me to abandon the system. I was conflicted about telling my long-time group that I was quitting for good. I had already asked each of them if they would DM, but none would. I was becoming more resolute to announce to the group that I was done with D&D, and probably running any kind of ongoing campaign in any system, when the new edition was announced. I continued to run 3E just to keep the group together and made the switch when I learned more about 4E. The reason I think of the problem as systemic is that I really liked 3E and some of the changes, especially multiclassing. Yet those very changes to the system were the root cause of frustration in my problem.

Of course this is more a case of is system mastery rewarded? I believe there is a Monte Cook essay that says there is some of that in 3.x, where system mastery is rewarded. It doesn't necessarily mean the system is broken though. And it doesn't mean that methodology is the answer for everyone.

True. I've tried to explain my position on many recent threads that, to me, systemic does not mean the system is broken for all. I don't think anyone could disagree (although I'm sure some will try) that the system broke for my group's desired playstyle. And that playstyle mainly revolves around buying and using supplemental books that the publisher wants you to buy and presumably use.

It is quite possible the current D&D system has lessened the effect of system mastery. Some people are apt to prefer that over one that rewards system mastery. Neither system is necessarily broken though. They just cater to different tastes in what a person wants from a game.

And neither taste is wrong or people playing the game wrong. We play to have fun so choose the system that you find fun!

Agreed.