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

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I respectfully disagree. The system has nothing to do with it. Resting is not guaranteed, and the DM has all the power he or she needs to make sure nova-and-resting is discouraged.

"You hear the stomping of feet and shouts in some sort of goblin-speech coming from the woods around you. There are no enemies nearby, but you can tell from years of experience that this is an unsafe place to rest.

The path you're on leads onward, toward the goblin camp. You know if you were lucky enough to reach it and dispatch the chieftain, the rest of the small horde would disperse. The path also leads back towards the town--a day's journey through the forest. A certainly dangerous trek, as you know. You also find a fallen tree trunk on the the banks of the river that flows sluggishly parallel with the path. You may be able to fashion a crude boat from the wood and continue to the city you can barely see at the base of the distant mountains."

First off, this certainly matches my playstyle and my players buy into this, so I agree with you personally.


But a DM has more controls at low levels to prevent certain issues from cropping up. But what happens when the party gains access to more convient modes of transport? Teleporting back to a well-studied home base after carefully studying the location they wish to return the next day? This happens around 9th level with just a wizard in the group. An 8th-level wizard can hide the party in a rope trick for 24 hours with three castings. You could obviously subject the party to danger each time they rest a home after a teleport or each time they exit the rope trick, but it seems awfully contrived at some point.

 

[BryonD]

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.

It's Bryon.

You know, you yourself stated that the problem CAN be avoided but that certain criteria are required in order to avoid it. We debated whether it was reasonable for me to state (as I still do) that when I meet those criteria without any effort then those criteria are not unreasonable.

You ALSO said that when you run a game BMX Bandit / Angel Summoner could not be avoided.

PER VB: Problem CAN be completely avoided.
PER VB: VB can't run the game without encountering a radical extreme form of the problem.

With those two items known, does it really matter what I did or didn't say?



(For the record, if you are having fun you are doing it right)

 

[Mournblade94]

That is because most if not all of your arguments were devoid of any facts to support your argument. Why do you think I kept on harping on you about your logical fallacies especial in a game where as Vyvyan Basterd put it you can fix a lot of the problems by slicing out content that the developers really didn't expect there to be problems to use.

Your harping on logical falacies because you do not know what they are, or you have trouble recognizing the plethora of yours.

Here is a FACT for you. The Caster disparity has NEVER been a problem for ME or anyone I played with. That is a fact.

Here is the fallacy: The caster disparity was NEVER a problem for me or my group, so therefore it could not have been a problem with YOURS.

I have never made that claim.

Houseruling is a sign of good GM's. Yet I did not cut out anything the designers expected to not be a problem in order to avoid the disparity, so I have no idea how you are relating anything to Vyvyan's post. His argument is different from yours, and I am responding to his accordingly.



You see the comical part is, you have backed absolutely NOTHING up with facts and will still accuse other of doing the same.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You ALSO said that when you run a game BMX Bandit / Angel Summoner could not be avoided.

Please re-read what I typed. I think you've missed one key word. "When I run a game of 3E the problem could not be avoided satisfactorily."

IOW, others' solutions to the problem, or the ways that led others to never encounter the problem, do not provide a solution that appeals to us.

 

[gamerprinter]

While I too have never had a problem regarding caster/martial disparity in my D&D games over the past 30+ years, it's not because we house ruled a fix to the game. As far as I can tell, I am playing as the rules intended and have not removed fluff or crunch to achieve the non-disparity. In fact we have almost no house rules at all, going pretty much verbatim by the rules - as we read it (of course).

Not to suggest others wouldn't have the disparity problem, as we don't, but not everybody reads the rules the same (apparently.)

Point being, I have made no change to the rules or the fluff, to achieve the kind of balanced game that Wicht describes in his - my experience is pretty much identical.

 

[Mournblade94]

I respectfully disagree. The system has nothing to do with it. Resting is not guaranteed, and the DM has all the power he or she needs to make sure nova-and-resting is discouraged.

"You hear the stomping of feet and shouts in some sort of goblin-speech coming from the woods around you. There are no enemies nearby, but you can tell from years of experience that this is an unsafe place to rest.

The path you're on leads onward, toward the goblin camp. You know if you were lucky enough to reach it and dispatch the chieftain, the rest of the small horde would disperse. The path also leads back towards the town--a day's journey through the forest. A certainly dangerous trek, as you know. You also find a fallen tree trunk on the the banks of the river that flows sluggishly parallel with the path. You may be able to fashion a crude boat from the wood and continue to the city you can barely see at the base of the distant mountains."

That I beleive is his point however in some sense. There is no RULE that parties have to rest or WHEN they have to rest. If someone wants the 15 minute adventuring day, there is no rule AGAINST it. Similarly as a DM you can force your players to move on because there is no rule for rest, other than the normal exertion.

So if I have a group insisting on a NOVA every encounter, then teleporting away to rest, there is really nothing in the rules against that.

In the Skeletons of Scarwall, in game time to clear the first level I think I recall was 1 hour and 45 minutes of INGAME time (two sessions I think). This included combat, searching, etc. Maybe it was 2 hours and 45 minutes I can't remember at the moment. In any case, had I allowed rest after every encounter, it would have taken about 3 days.

There is nothing in the rules that makes that have any difference. It did make a difference in game because Scarwall would have made new spirit anchors. THey would have had to go through dungeon level 1 all over again.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think you understood what analogy I was making. I was not analogizing playing D&D to smoking cigarettes. I was analogizing the statement "I didn't have a problem with linear fighters-quadratic wizards, so I saw no need for the change" to "I didn't get cancer from smoking, so I saw no need for anti-smoking regulations". Both statements seek to diminish the people arguing for change by implying their concerns are beneath notice, or are not genuine without addressing the substance of the change. They simply handwave even the idea that change was needed.

I do understand that. And it is still wrong.

No one is saying anything comparable to "I didn't get cancer from smoking, so I saw no need for anti-smoking regulations"

There is ZERO equivalence.

If you didn't get cancer it was PURE LUCK.
You are equating an unavoidable consequence whose results were a matter of luck to a fully avoidable consequence whose results are a matter of behavior.

 

[BryonD]

Please re-read what I typed. I think you've missed one key word. "When I run a game of 3E the problem could not be avoided satisfactorily."

Did you or did you not say that BMX Bandit / Angel Summoner was a "not BS" example of what consistently happened to you?

What shades of "acceptable" apply to that?

 

[gamerprinter]

True, but to declare there is a built in disparity problem (as some do claim), because there is no rule to prevent one from going Nova then resting does not mean that that is the implied way to play - thus disparity is built in. If you run your games to allow for nova to happen, it's a problem at the DM level, not the system.

For some this might not be a problem, thus I'm not saying it is a problem or a bad/wrong/fun aspect to how one run's their game. However, if disparity is a problem for you, perhaps you need to change your game by pacing out your encounters, and never having a defined number of encounters for any kind of pace of casting to occur.

It's almost as one is trying to say, I'm a soldier in a war, but the enemy needs to stop shooting at me while I rest, because I am out of bullets. What your state of resources are or are not should not be the mechanism that determines whether you are in or out of a fight.

 

[Mournblade94]

True, but to declare there is a built in disparity problem (as some do claim), because there is no rule to prevent one from Nova then rest does not mean that that is the implied way to play, thus disparity is built in. If you run your games to allow for nova to happen, its a problem at the DM level, not the system.

For some this might not be a problem, thus I'm not saying it is a problem or a bad/wrong/fun aspect to how one run's there game. However if disparity is a problem for you, perhaps you need to change your game by pacing out your encounters, and never having a defined number of encounters for any kind of pace of casting to occur.

Its almost as if one is trying to say, I'm a soldier in a war, but the enemy needs to stop shooting at me while I rest, because I am out of bullets. What your state of resources are or are not should not be the mechanism that determines whether you are in or out of the fight.

I fully agree!