D&D 5E I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?

[BryonD]

For me, the question this raises isn't about "receptiveness", but rather - how important is it to the success of an edition of D&D that there not be a vocal group of RPGers actually decrying it?

Is our test for success that those who aren't playing about it aren't also whinging about it?

I think these two things are much more tightly connected than you are allowing here.

4E threw a much smaller net and then on top of that there was a strong insistent voice within the fanbase claiming that nothing of significance had changed. Whether it was being implied or outright stated, the theme of "if you don't like 4E then you are a closed minded H4TER with an axe to grind" was loud and common. Thus, people who truly disliked the changes they saw were challenged and motivated to elaborate. This was "whining".

A lot of people didn't like 3E. But the pattern did not appear in that case.

Casting a wider net would have gone a long way toward popularity. But accepting that there were legitimate reasons for disliking things and simply having a difference in taste doesn't make you a h4ter would go a long way toward shutting down the edition wars.

5E truly seems to be built on the idea that there is a wider net to be cast and further, that two group can play with completely different expectations.

There will still be people who don't like 5E. But if the 5E fanbase accepts that, then the edition wars will be like 3E - a trivial part of the background.

 

[Imaro]

I do wonder which would be more likely to succeed as a big budget film... The Heroes of the Lance or Drizzt and company...

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you've playtested the final game from level 1 to 20... with the DMG options... right?? Just curious.

Well, I've played & run the prior version at all levels up to 26, so I'm pretty confident that it did solve the class balance issue - and the way it solved it was quite evident (it gave all classes the same proportion of various-recharge resources). That solution has been rolled back, and 5e has the same kind of class design - some classes with their effectiveness concentrated in at-will resources, others heavily invested in daily resources, each scaling differently - that has failed to deliver class balance in the past. That's not putting forth an alternate solution.

And your proof that we've reverted is?? I'm seriously curious since only one core book has been released and not even to the general public...

It's clear enough from the Basic pdf, even if you didn't participate in the playtest (assuming you're familiar with more than one prior edition, that is). You only need to compare the Fighter or Rogue to the Wizard or Cleric to see the issue, and compare them to the prior ed and classic ed versions to see which those designs more closely resemble.


Edit: I don't want to get into a grindy debate, here, so I'll help you out: The tack you want to take is not that rolling back solutions is progress, but that progress is bad, and that things like class imbalance are what the fanbase /wants/. (As proof, you can offer the failure of D&D to hit it's 50-100 million revenue goal, contrasted with the wild success of Pathfinder bringing in 11 million, once D&D stopped putting out any new competing product).

 

[Imaro]

Well, I've played & run the prior version at all levels up to 26, so I'm pretty confident that it did solve the class balance issue - and the way it solved it was quite evident (it gave all classes the same proportion of various-recharge resources). That solution has been rolled back, and 5e has the same kind of class design - some classes with their effectiveness concentrated in at-will resources, others heavily invested in daily resources, each scaling differently - that has failed to deliver class balance in the past. That's not putting forth an alternate solution.

I didn't ask whether you've played the previous editions, that's quite apparent with the fact that you bring it up in nearly every 5e thread you post in... You haven't answered the question I asked, have you played 5e throughout it's level range and tested the optional rules in the DMG? If not you can't definitively declare anything about it at this point.

It's clear enough from the Basic pdf, even if you didn't participate in the playtest (assuming you're familiar with more than one prior edition, that is). You only need to compare the Fighter or Rogue to the Wizard or Cleric to see the issue, and compare them to the prior ed and classic ed versions to see which those designs more closely resemble.

What issue? balance? Again where is your proof? And do you have access to the DMG and it's options? you're making alot of statements that aren't supported by anything... I haven't seen anyone claim major imbalances in 5e amongst the classes yet... so yeah i'm going to need more than the word of someone who doesn't even have the PHB yet...

EDIT: Repeating the same thing over and over again is not evidence of it's truth. Either you have some concrete facts/evidence/etc. you can actually present or you're just wasting word count repeating yourself . I'm not saying you're wrong (though your claims of the gross imbalances in 5e seems to be going against what most people who actually have the book are saying)... but yeah, I need more than repetition and a declaration of it being apparent.

 

[Imaro]

Edit: I don't want to get into a grindy debate, here, so I'll help you out: The tack you want to take is not that rolling back solutions is progress, but that progress is bad, and that things like class imbalance are what the fanbase /wants/. (As proof, you can offer the failure of D&D to hit it's 50-100 million revenue goal, contrasted with the wild success of Pathfinder bringing in 11 million, once D&D stopped putting out any new competing product).

Don't do that... don't tell me what I want to say. I said what I meant... The fact is you haven't shown a shred of proof that the classes are wildly imbalanced. that's the problem with your entire assertion... nothing is backing it up.

You talk a big game about how irrational the claims of those who didn't like 4e were during the edition wars... kettle...pot...

 

[Tony Vargas]

4E threw a much smaller net

Simply not true. D&D tried to appeal to D&Ders who had long been complaining about the known failings of the system, to new players and casual players (via the Encounters program), to boardgamers (via games like Castle Ravenloft), and to CRPG/MMO players with DDI and the promise of the VTT. (thus the frequent, if off-base comparison to an MMO or a board game).

5E truly seems to be built on the idea that there is a wider net to be cast and further, that two group can play with completely different expectations.

While it talks that talk, it doesn't actually deliver. 5e is directed primarily at longtime fans, and quite effectively so, calling back the ancient feel of early AD&D. Why, I was just reviewing HotDQ as I'm going to run it at Encounters, and I was struck by the charming, nostalgic archaisms, like random encounters of random numbers of monsters, that it lead with. The way Mearls & co talk about appealing to new players (and the way Encounters, aimed somewhat at new players, is being set up) also speaks more to appealing to what longtime players remember of being new, than what actual new players might need out of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I said what I meant... The fact is you haven't shown a shred of proof that the classes are wildly imbalanced.

The proof is right there in the Basic pdf and PH: You've got a fighter & rogue with no dailies, a Wizard and Cleric with tons of them - you can't see how varying the length of the adventuring day would impact the balance among those classes? I mean, it's basically the same structure as failed to deliver class balance in the past. How is that not rolling back? Why would anyone expect it to work this time?

 

[Imaro]

The proof is right there in the Basic pdf and PH: You've got a fighter & rogue with no dailies, a Wizard and Cleric with tons of them - you can't see how varying the length of the adventuring day would impact the balance among those classes? I mean, it's basically the same structure as failed to deliver class balance in the past. How is that not rolling back? Why would anyone expect it to work this time?

Wait so were essentials classes in 4e all unbalanced?? Because that sure wasn't the prevailing attitude when they were released. The majority of 4e fans claimed they worked just fine with differing resources... how about psionic characters?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wait so were essentials classes in 4e all unbalanced??

No, just the dailyless martial sub-classes. Though, of course, not /as/ badly imbalanced, since AEDU classes had so much less of their effectiveness concentrated in dailies relative to traditional D&D casters (both no where near as many dailies, and not as extreme in their effects).

 

[Imaro]

No, just the dailyless martial sub-classes. Though, of course, not /as/ badly imbalanced, since AEDU classes had so much less of their effectiveness concentrated in dailies relative to traditional D&D casters (both no where near as many dailies, and not as extreme in their effects).

But you claimed 4e fixed the problem... so did it revert with PHB 3? Were psionics a reversion because they came out before essentials? Are you saying 4e fixed the problem the recreated it? How did rituals factor into this as well, did they cause an imbalance?

Personally I didn't see this great imbalance differing resource usage should have caused when rituals, psionic, essentials and regular 4e characters were used in the same party... and them being unbalanced didn't seem to be the prevailing sentiment among 4e fans either at the time. I don't know, maybe this assumption that differing resource allotment must intrinsically cause a great imbalance is...well... wrong.