D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[Umbran]

Without trying to define, delimit or otherwise declare what is and isn't "Edition Warring", I can confidently say that the importance attached to activities which fall under that definition -- whatever it is -- is of importance to certain Message Boards and discussion Forums. It has no application, concern, or any merit in describing posts, blogs or communications posted outside of those particular haunts. They are "local forum rules", not rules of general application.

While we might accept that it originated on certain Forums, the issue has grown somewhat beyond that initial scope. Edition warring now happens in-person as well, among folks who do not themselves even read certain forums.

In essence - any time someone says, "that thing you love *sucks*," be it a game, a playstyle or whatever, you should expect an emotional reaction from the fan.

Jonathan Tweet is a co-Creator of 3rd Edition. I would fully expect him to prefer his creation in any cross-comparative analysis of game systems.

Favoring his own system? Sure. Call his prior work, or other people's work, badwrongfun, or otherwise use language to suggest that those who play differently than his game are somehow doing it wrong, or missing the point? That would be unprofessional, and should earn him a hairy eyeball or two.

In general, anything a professional says in support of his or her own work (or against works that are in competition for the hearts of customers) is essentially marketing. Having a horse in the race implies a bias, such that professionals probably ought to stay out of the business of public critique of the competition.

RPGs are not sports teams - while the partisanship may help support sports team pride and ticket sales, trash-talking is not constructive for us. While we can critique, we (player and designer alike) are better served if it remains as constructive criticism. And note that constructive criticism is a learned skill. Not everyone has it.

Professionals, being in positions of influence and control, are well-served to be very thoughtful of their audiences - writing without knowing the audience is a recipe for foot-in-mouth disease. If Schwalb was surprised by the blowback, that says to me that he wrote without understanding his audience, and whether he was edition warring or not, he takes some blame for that.

WotC more generally should take a little heat for it, too - they *know* how some of the negative marketing they did was received last time around, and should have prevented team members from repeating the same mistake.

 

[MoonSong]

Skill Focus - which you may be able to stack, I forget.

So as much room or more than BD&D/1/2E and more than 5E right now.

There is no perform skill in 4e, applying skill focus to it is the realm of houserules. 2e had ways to invest, invest a nwp slot, improve with the nwp, basic as of rules cyclopedia also featured this possibility. And as far as I know nwps date back to late 1E.

5E works identically to 4E in this regard, FWIW. So I take it you object to 5E equally here?

Well this is something I miss indeed, but it isn't the same comparing a new edition to a complete one in this regard. Most of those extra items showed up in the warrior splatbooks in 2e and 3.x (and PF), except for perhaps the net none showed up ever in 4e.

(And what does FWIW mean?)

 

[Jester David]

The base math of the game assumes every character will have three good stats: a primary to-hit stat, a secondary stat based on their build, and a third stat for their last defence.

No it doesn't. If you look at the base math of the game you only get 2 improvements per stat boost. It assumes you can not have three good stats.

PCs need three good stats: one ability score for each NAD. That's assumed for monster accuracy.

Monsters gain a +1 to defences and attacks at each level. They scale identically. PCs gain a +1 bonus to defences and attacks every other level, with the gap every second level filled by magic items and stat boosts. The defences of a PC increases at the same rate as their attacks which should both keep pace with monsters' attacks and defences.

However, as you say, PCs can only boost two stats each level. The fact that one NAD lags behind (by as much as 3 points) is a flaw in the execution of math.

The game assumes an 18 in their primary stat and 20s are common as well

Nope. The game math was balanced round a 16 in your primary stat. It's just that players more frequently go for 18s or even 20s

I've seen it argued that the game assumes a 16 and I've seen it argued that the game assumes a 20. So I tend to split the difference.
However, both official Character Builders tend to give you a 20 if you let them assign your stats; so the designers do seem to assume you want a 20.

All characters are optimized for one of four combat roles.

Because a two weapon ranger does exactly the same thing as a sorcerer. Riiiight.

Yes: they deal damage. On average, they deal identical amounts of damage each Encounter.
The how is irrelevant and only the execution varies.

4e characters are built very much like optimized 3e characters who focus on a single role and put all their skill ranks in the same skills every level and always take combat options.

Nope. 4e characters are built like non-min/maxed 3e characters. You don't worry about long feat chains, unlike a min/maxing 3e fighter. You don't have an incredibly long spell book and the ability to do almost everything, unlike a 3e wizard or cleric, and don't trawl the bestiary, unlike the 3e Druid. All your skills rather than just your hyper-specialised few grow as you level.

Your claim you focus on a single role is in direct contradiction to the rulebooks - and to effective play. For instance my last Warlord was simultaneously able to restore hit points, able to tank one flank unsupported (as he frequently needed to do) and when swearing at the monsters he, as a Bravura Warlord sometimes used to top the DPR lists with Brash Assault and Provoke Overextension handing out free attacks on his turn (although not when tanking).

So once again false.

Your first point here is the HOW 3e optimized. Which is irrelevant. 4e does not replicate the how, it replicates the effect: characters dedicated to a single purpose.

Your second point brings up a subtle change in 4e class design, the idea of a secondary role. This was introduced after launch, some time before the PHB2 where each class has a primary role but their choice of subclass allows them to dabble in an aspect of another role.
With system master and more options you *can* build a character to be good at multiple role, but this was not the intent of the game system. And a warlord PC designed to be a tank or DPR will still always be able to act as a leader. A skilled player can always build a character that goes against the intended design of the class/system, but this does not mean the intended design does not exist.

The base of 4e is a minimum level of optimization. "You need to be <this> optimized to ride 4th edition."

Where the minimum height requirement is one a teenage halfling or gnome would pass. "Work out what you want to do. Pick a class that fits it. It has a primary stat. That should be your best. Then build to whatever theme you chose."

I didn't say it was *hard*, just that it was assumed.

 

[Emerikol]

The first claim is not true at all. Gygax and Moldvay both talk about encounter balance in their rulebooks, as well as rules for adjusting monster numbers to fit the dungeon level.

The second claim is true. It relates to the point I made upthread, contrasting exploration-oriented play with conflict-oriented play.

Yes but every single monster table you rolled on did not produce a fair encounter. Many games at the time had weak, moderate, and too powerful encounters. There was much more an expectation the the encounters were designed to fit the setting in a natural way and far less about a "fair" encounter. I'm not saying there was zero. I'm just saying that this obsession with balanced encounters became far more significant in 3e with CR than it ever was prior.

I think the Gygaxian playstyle could be called "world first".

 

[Hussar]

Yes but every single monster table you rolled on did not produce a fair encounter. Many games at the time had weak, moderate, and too powerful encounters. There was much more an expectation the the encounters were designed to fit the setting in a natural way and far less about a "fair" encounter. I'm not saying there was zero. I'm just saying that this obsession with balanced encounters became far more significant in 3e with CR than it ever was prior.

I think the Gygaxian playstyle could be called "world first".

But, that's actually no different than how 3e was built with it's X% par, Y% above or below par encounter guidelines. There was absolutely no reason for every 3e encounter to be par and it was specifically spelled out that there should be about 1/3 to 1/2 of encounters either above or below par.

And, which encounter table are you talking about? The wilderness ones I agree were "world first" in a kinda/sorta way. Although, the world that gets created from those tables is pretty far out there. However, the dungeon wandering monster tables were very balanced. If you look at those tables, the xp values of almost every encounter within a given level was very much within a very narrow band and very, very few would be enough to place the encounter at a higher or lower dungeon level. There were a few exceptions, but, very few.

Once you get out of the DMG and into modules, things change again. The random encounter tables are very balanced again. You don't get wandering Red Dragons in a 1st level module nor do you get 1-6 kobolds in a 9th level module. By 2e, the wandering monster tables were built based on both the level of the party and the rarity value of the monster. 2e contains pretty detailed guidelines for building wandering monster tables - 2d10 encounters with the very rares at the top and bottom and the commons falling between 9-12 and everything within the expected level of the party.

I think, Emrikol, if you step back and look closely at those tables, you'll find that Gygax and others were very concerned with balance and the idea that you'd just "encounter whatever makes sense" isn't as common as you might think.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

(And what does FWIW mean?)

For what it's worth

 

[Emerikol]

I think, Emrikol, if you step back and look closely at those tables, you'll find that Gygax and others were very concerned with balance and the idea that you'd just "encounter whatever makes sense" isn't as common as you might think.

It's Emerikol. There is an Emirikol running around here too. No biggie just letting you know.

I'm not saying that Gygax had zero interest in balance. In fact, no doubt some games blew up because people blindly followed some encounter tables.

I'm just saying that his focus was not to the degree it became in 3e/4e. The monster manual for example had numbers appearing far in excess of what would make a good encounter.

I'm not saying Gygax would have approved throwing a red dragon at a 1st level group. I think though in those days having a Ogre in the module that was too powerful for that 1st level group was not uncommon. You might assume the group wouldn't encounter that Ogre until they hit second or third level but it was not a given. Keep on the Borderlands could get you killed very easily if you go to the hardest cave right off the bat.

Maybe it's more sandbox vs non-sandbox when it comes to module design.

I still think that if you had a slider that the world first philosophy had the slider more in it's direction during 1e than during 3e. That is not to say it was slid all the way though. It was a tone and tenor of the game.

 

[Neonchameleon]

PCs need three good stats: one ability score for each NAD. That's assumed for monster accuracy.

Monsters gain a +1 to defences and attacks at each level. They scale identically. PCs gain a +1 bonus to defences and attacks every other level, with the gap every second level filled by magic items and stat boosts. The defences of a PC increases at the same rate as their attacks which should both keep pace with monsters' attacks and defences.

PCs also get feats (monsters don't) and a lot more powers than any monster. I don't believe the to hit rate falling behind was actually a mistake in the maths at all.

However, as you say, PCs can only boost two stats each level. The fact that one NAD lags behind (by as much as 3 points) is a flaw in the execution of math.

Other than that as soon as it exceeds +2 (i.e. in Epic) you get access to an untyped feat that can add 4 to a NAD.

Yes: they deal damage. On average, they deal identical amounts of damage each Encounter.
The how is irrelevant and only the execution varies.

To recap, the claim is that a Sorcerer and Ranger deal identical amounts of damage per encounter because they are both Strikers. This is false. And it's more obviously shown to be false by, for example the PHB Warlock and the PHB Ranger. With the ranger dealing a lot more damage than the warlock, despite both being Strikers. The Warlock on the other hand being a secondary controller, something you apparently don't think exists in the PHB.

Your claim is both conceptually and empirically wrong.

Your first point here is the HOW 3e optimized. Which is irrelevant. 4e does not replicate the how, it replicates the effect: characters dedicated to a single purpose.

This is neither true for optimised 3.X nor for optimised 4E. An optimised 3E character is a Tier 1 caster and can do almost literally anything. An optimised 4E character is generally very broadly competent (the 4E skill system being flexible) and can cover slack. You appear to be confusing DPR Challenges and the like with in play optimisation.

Your second point brings up a subtle change in 4e class design, the idea of a secondary role. This was introduced after launch, some time before the PHB2 where each class has a primary role but their choice of subclass allows them to dabble in an aspect of another role.

None of this is true either.

First, classes in the PHB have subclasses. The most obvious one is the Warlock with Fey Pact, Infernal Pact, and Star Pact being subclasses that handle things very differently. All classes in the PHB have subclasses.

Second, there is a deliberate correlation between power source and role that's especially evident in the PHB. All martial characters are secondary strikers (meaning that the Ranger is a double striker and so the most single target damaging class in the game). All divine characters are secondary leaders (with the Cleric doubling up on the leadership while the Warlord does more damage as it's a secondary striker). All arcane characters are secondary controllers, which is why the Warlock is superb at handing out awkward choices. And all Primal characters are secondary defenders - very tough and the classes most likely to throw around Spirit Companions or shrug off conditions.

This was all there right in the PHB.

With system master and more options you *can* build a character to be good at multiple role, but this was not the intent of the game system. And a warlord PC designed to be a tank or DPR will still always be able to act as a leader. A skilled player can always build a character that goes against the intended design of the class/system, but this does not mean the intended design does not exist.

The intended design just isn't what you think it is. You can not play a member of that class without getting things out of that class/role. But how much you choose to focus on it is entirely up to you. A fighter built for damage can outdamage a warlock built for control. For that matter I've played a warlock that was regularly being outdamaged by the party mage (evoker/pyromancer). But did that mean I was unhappy? Not at all. My feypact warlock (officially a striker) was the one giving the DM fits and refusing to let the monsters do their thing. Sometimes by charging and hitting the enemy over the head with his staff to get the slide to push them off whatever ledge they were on. (I got a lot of weird looks when I tried that little stunt in the second round of the first encounter I played with that group). In short my warlock was for all practical purposes a controller, handing out blindness, to hit debuffs, and immobilising foes.

Yes but every single monster table you rolled on did not produce a fair encounter. Many games at the time had weak, moderate, and too powerful encounters. There was much more an expectation the the encounters were designed to fit the setting in a natural way and far less about a "fair" encounter. I'm not saying there was zero. I'm just saying that this obsession with balanced encounters became far more significant in 3e with CR than it ever was prior.

Nowhere in the rules to 3E or in the rules to 4E does it say that encounters must be fair in any way, shape, or form. This is a common misconception. What balanced mechanics do is tell the DM when the encounter is unfair.

That said, there was a shift towards fair encounters starting in 3.0. This happened when the Forge of Fury, entirely in line with the guidance, dropped a Roper into the basement. And there were howls of outrage from players getting TPK'd by that thing. (I've played the Forge of Fury - we decided that the Roper was not something we wanted to tangle with).

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's Emerikol. There is an Emirikol running around here too. No biggie just letting you know.

I'm not saying that Gygax had zero interest in balance. In fact, no doubt some games blew up because people blindly followed some encounter tables.

I'm just saying that his focus was not to the degree it became in 3e/4e. The monster manual for example had numbers appearing far in excess of what would make a good encounter.

I'm not saying Gygax would have approved throwing a red dragon at a 1st level group. I think though in those days having a Ogre in the module that was too powerful for that 1st level group was not uncommon. You might assume the group wouldn't encounter that Ogre until they hit second or third level but it was not a given. Keep on the Borderlands could get you killed very easily if you go to the hardest cave right off the bat.

Maybe it's more sandbox vs non-sandbox when it comes to module design.

I still think that if you had a slider that the world first philosophy had the slider more in it's direction during 1e than during 3e. That is not to say it was slid all the way though. It was a tone and tenor of the game.

You're right that it's more sandbox vs non-sandbox. If playing a sandbox in 3.X you normally treat areas as having a level range and what you see is normally based on that level range in exactly the same way that different dungeon levels have different levels of danger. And the Wilderness is more dangerous than the first few dungeon levels. Things haven't changed - but the representation has.

 

[WayneLigon]

My own experience was this for the first 20 years I played D&D: the 'perfect rules storm' was still possible, but it mainly was the province of spellcasters. Each spell was practically a separate little rule in and of itself, since there was so little cohesion between them. That very lack of cohesion and a bevy of contradictory rules sets mostly prevented you from creating the same types of monstrous optimization 3E allowed you to do. This was just a lucky accident, though, not some vested virtue of what is perceived by some as a simpler game system itself. Once you added in supplements, third party material, house organ material, module material, house-ruled material, home-brewed material, (eventually) material from other game systems and previous editions you had a system just as daunting - and as easily gamed - as anything produced later.

The second takeaway from the first part of the OP: in my experience, nobody ever buys their first RPG 'cold' and comes away from it yearning to play. It's always something taught by those already in the know.