D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Shadeydm]

I described the situation as the murderer and his gang/allies, IIRC without scrolling back. So the fight isn't over that quickly. We're talking about an elaborate, exciting fight that is there to bring the story of the adventure to an dramatic conclusion. It is still a big boss battle.

Everyone in the party will use their action points and dailies in this scenario. Everyone will Nova. That's okay, since everyone can "Nova".

But if not everyone can nova, than those that can will dominate this fight, because the novaing character can use a more powerful ability each round, abilities that he would normally have to spread across many encounters that day, he can alll focus in one, leaving no need for the normally balancing actions where he cannot cast a powerful spell but is relegated to firing his cross-bow or using some other weak at-will ability.

There is the imbalance.

And if you do not want to see that, okay. I think this is the last time I'll try.

If its a big boss battle as you said then spending you xp budget for the day will indeed balance the encounter

 

[Pickles JG]

If its a big boss battle as you said then spending you xp budget for the day will indeed balance the encounter

You see this is my big issue with this whole set up. I can live with different classes being somewhat imbalanced depending on the length of an adventuring day provided that length varies from day to day.

I cannot however see how one 2000 xp encounter can ever be balanced against 5 x 400 xp encounters. Even inadvertent focus firing will obliterate PCs regardless of how many spells that can cast (could cast if they were not dead). Unless of course 400 xp encounters are old school lose a few hp encounters which are too dull for me to want to play. & if they are not 200xp encounters will yuk!

(& FWIW 4e does not do super challenging encounters very well as the PCs do not have as much nova capacityas other eds but then you can make these enounters multiphase ones with good benefit, which answers my 5e problem too )

 

[pemerton]

Then why is the ability that's causing it on the character sheet and selected as part of character creation and occurring as part of an action that the character takes?

Because those are the names we give to the process in an RPG whereby a player generates his/her mechanical resources. And we right them down on the PC sheet.

In Oriental Adventures (AD&D edition) the character sheet also contains information about the PC's family and ancestry. In most games I GM, the character sheet is also where the player write down notes about the gameworld that they or their PCs have learned during play.

Not much turns on this, I don't think. It's merely terminology.

If character [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2 [/URL] has an ability that says "I can move 10 ft. once per round on someone else's turn", that's very different than character [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] having an ability saying "I can move someone else 10 ft. etc. etc.".

Yes. The difference would be which player is in charge of triggering the ability.

As far as I can tell, you are arguing that no player should ever have an ability that enables another PC to act in the gameworld.

Or, alternatively, you're arguing that if Player A choose a power that, when used, enables other PCs to move, instead of Player A writing it down on his/her PC sheet, the other players should write down "When Player A uses power X, move my PC Z squares". That seems needlessly cumbersome just to preserve some sort of purity of the PC sheet.

If rough equality is enough, why would any major rpg be considered not sufficiently balanced?

Because the various PC builds aren't roughly equal?

 

[Manbearcat]

Oh amusing internet. How a thread that is supposed to be about "How Can D&D Next Win You Over?" can turn into 3 simultaneous, only marginally (at best) related conversations, none of which answer the question posed in the initial thread, is as evasive a mystery as the location of the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail.

 

[Manbearcat]

Manbearcat brings up various ball related sports as an analogy to potentially show how silly my argument is, in that if you remove some descriptions of ball sports they all sound identical.
Which, contrary to his intended point, I agree with.

The thing about martial powers in 4e, like most team-based ball sports on a field, is there are small differences between them an other "spells". Mostly the lack of energy types.

<snip>

Ok, I've read this post a few times now trying desperately to make out if I've made some fatal, unaccounted for error in my reasoning...but I'm still stuck.

You seem to be arguing simultaneously:

- Against your tautological construct by saying that the sports mentioned encompass more scope, depth, and distinction than just the components, by way of reductionist logic, presented. Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with that position...which was the point.

- For your tautological construct because ball sports are "samey" (my word).

Not only are these two positions mutually exclusive from one another, but I couldn't possibly disagree more with the second...not from a player's side (I've played all of those sports, save soccer, at a serious level for over a decade) nor a spectator's side. Each sport demands a different physical skill set (speed, power, agility, body control, vertical leap, balance, grit, hand-eye-coordination, foot-eye-coordination, aerobic conditioning, mental toughness, quick information-processing, spatial awareness) with some overlap here and there. They each have enormously different infrastructure. They each have distinct nuance within their respective rulesets. Finally, as a spectator, the pace and tension, and corresponding theater, of each sport (and how it is delivered by all the prior elements listed) is enormously different.

I'm baffled.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The point remains Tony how balanced or unbalanced 5E will be for people who want to have one weak or average encounter per day remains to be seen we don't know and probably won't until it's released.

Well, L&L already admitted that you'd need a certain, if unspecified at the moment, degree of daily challenge, so that it will be unbalanced sounds like a promise, at this point. And, though we know what vaporware is worth, the real question seems to just be how imbalanced. The answer will depend on the disparity in daily resources among classes. The more traditionally Vancian (all-daily) the Vancian classes are, and the more traditionally melee-beat-stick the non-caster are, the worse it'll be.

Even just going on what we've seen so far, though, it seems unlikely it'll manage to be quite as unbalanced in that situation as high-level 3.5 was...

...unless, of course, the 3.5/Pathfinder fans are vocal enough in their insistence it be so.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As far as I can tell, you are arguing that no player should ever have an ability that enables another PC to act in the gameworld.

Yes.

 

[Jester David]

Ok, I've read this post a few times now trying desperately to make out if I've made some fatal, unaccounted for error in my reasoning...but I'm still stuck.

You seem to be arguing simultaneously:

- Against your tautological construct by saying that the sports mentioned encompass more scope, depth, and distinction than just the components, by way of reductionist logic, presented. Of course, I wholeheartedly agree with that position...which was the point.

- For your tautological construct because ball sports are "samey" (my word).

Not only are these two positions mutually exclusive from one another, but I couldn't possibly disagree more with the second...not from a player's side (I've played all of those sports, save soccer, at a serious level for over a decade) nor a spectator's side. Each sport demands a different physical skill set (speed, power, agility, body control, vertical leap, balance, grit, hand-eye-coordination, foot-eye-coordination, aerobic conditioning, mental toughness, quick information-processing, spatial awareness) with some overlap here and there. They each have enormously different infrastructure. They each have distinct nuance within their respective rulesets. Finally, as a spectator, the pace and tension, and corresponding theater, of each sport (and how it is delivered by all the prior elements listed) is enormously different.

I'm baffled.

Okay, I'll try again.

Team ball sports, compared only to other team ball sports, are more different than alike. However, when compared to all other sports, ball sports are more alike than unlike.
Similarly, martial exploits, when limited to comparisons with other 4th edition powers, are different and therefor must not be spells. However, when compared with all other potential implementations of martial exploits versus spells, are much more alike than not.
(But, even when compared with other 4e powers, most martial exploits are more similar to spells than different. Much like when compared to other ball sports, American football is closer to rugby than to soccer or basketball.)

Thus, my point is that 4e martial powers are pretty much spells, because they are almost identical mechanically and are more similar than dissimilar.
That's pretty much the gist of it; I'm saying 4e fighters cast spells, and everyone else in the discussion is saying they're not.
And the length and breadth of these kind of arguments is really making me question why I bother and if this really has any bearing at all to the game and if we might all be better off just turning off our computers and spending more time with our families and letting the game just die quietly and with dignity...

 

[Manbearcat]

Okay, I'll try again.

Team ball sports, compared only to other team ball sports, are more different than alike. However, when compared to all other sports, ball sports are more alike than unlike.
Similarly, martial exploits, when limited to comparisons with other 4th edition powers, are different and therefor must not be spells. However, when compared with all other potential implementations of martial exploits versus spells, are much more alike than not.
(But, even when compared with other 4e powers, most martial exploits are more similar to spells than different. Much like when compared to other ball sports, American football is closer to rugby than to soccer or basketball.)

Thus, my point is that 4e martial powers are pretty much spells, because they are almost identical mechanically and are more similar than dissimilar.
That's pretty much the gist of it; I'm saying 4e fighters cast spells, and everyone else in the discussion is saying they're not.
And the length and breadth of these kind of arguments is really making me question why I bother and if this really has any bearing at all to the game and if we might all be better off just turning off our computers and spending more time with our families and letting the game just die quietly and with dignity...

Thank you for attempting to clarify Jester. Rather than typing a long and obnoxiously penetrating rejoinder (unless you really, really want me to...you seem somewhat weary of this effort...but if you'd like, let me know, and we can continue), I think I'm just going to take the advice in your last paragraph as I'm certain that you believe that your position is internally consistent in reason, logically tenable and functional in more than just theory (in practical reality as well). I don't know if there would be much use in us carrying on further.

 

[pemerton]

The thing about martial powers in 4e, like most team-based ball sports on a field, is there are small differences between them an other "spells". Mostly the lack of energy types.
Bursts and blasts are not excluded. The fighter has a few close bursts and blasts, and classes like the rogue and ranger can make blasts as well. So, really, the difference between spells and martial exploits seems to only be different damage types and the ability to make ranged bursts.

<snip>

Yes, the flavour is different, but in play at the table, they function mechanically identical. The paint job is different.

<snip>

Limited to 4e and just 4e it's easy to say "oh, there's lots of differences between spells and martial exploits".

<snip>

But when you consider just what other editions of the game have done with spells and martial powers the difference is huge. Not only do exploits kinda look like spells but most powers do kinda look the same.

Here is the 1st level Moldvay Basic spell list, as best I recall it:

*Charm Person
*Detect Magic
*Floating Disk
*Hold Portal
*Light
*Magic Missile
*Protection From Evil
*Read Languages
*Read Magic
*Shield
*Sleep
*Ventriloquism​

Now, here are their mechanical implementations in 4e:

*Charm Person - Suggestion, a per encounter cantrip that permits Arcana in place of Diplomacy

*Detect Magic - part of the Arcana skill

*Floating Disk - a 1st level ritual

*Light - an at-will cantrip

*Magic Missile - an at-will attack

*Read Languages - a 1st level ritual

*Read Magic - part of the Arcana skill

*Shield - a 2nd level encounter utility power

*Sleep - a 1st level daily attack power

*Ventriloquism - Ghost Sound, an at-will cantrip​

There is no clear equivalent, in 4e, to Protection from Evil. A daily utility that grants a power bonus to defences, and to saves vs Charm affects, would probably do as a susbtitute.

There is also no clear equivalent to Hold Portal - I think the Mage Hand cantrip could be used to push a door shut, and I think I would be happy to allow a wizard who was sustaining such a Mage Hand to make an opposed Arcana check for anyone trying to open the door. If you want something better than that, a per-encounter Utility that locks a door within R:10 and makes it a Hard DC to open would probably be OK.

So what are the spell effects that aren't or can't be replicated in 4e?

It's true that 4e uses more uniform mechanics than earlier editions - but if the only difference between a sword and a finger of death is that the latter bypasses the hit point mechanic, that's not a meaningful roleplaying difference (a sword as much as magic can stop a person's heart beating, if used properly). It's a purely mechanical difference that doesn't correlate to anything meaningful in the fiction.