D&D 5E I think the era of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons had it right. (not talking about the rules).

[doctorbadwolf]

We haven't seen much warlock in play, but the degree of difficulty for playing a warlock well is clearly much higher than some other characters. Archer ranger, on the other hand, is both easy to play and mechanically very effective.

I think that's a good design - make the easy stuff effective, and make the people who like more intricate stuff have to work to get their character to really sing. It means a player doesn't get doubly rewarded for enjoying the fiddly bits.

no. That is awful design. The warlock needed the fix they gave it. The math wasn't right.
Land players who like complexity shouldn't have to work harder to have a competent character. That isn't a lack of double reward, that is a punishment.

 

[pemerton]

Land players who like complexity shouldn't have to work harder to have a competent character. That isn't a lack of double reward, that is a punishment.

I'm not sure what you mean by "land players". I also don't think "competent character" is a hard threshold to reach in 4e, even using a warlock.

But I don't think it's good for the game if players who are into the mechanical intricacy are able to build characters which are significantly more mechanically effective than simple ones. PC builds that are based around mechanical intricacy should assume that that intricacy is being put to work as part of their balancing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No. intricacy should not be punished. That's ridiculous. The fixed warlock isn't more powerful/effective than the simple 4e classes, but it is on the same level as a rogue, or non optimized ranger. That is good design. Complex and simple classes should not have different efficacy levels.
Intricacy isn't part of the balance equation. And if it were, needing higher system mastery to make the thing should mean that doing so is rewarded, not punished.

 

[delericho]

No. intricacy should not be punished. That's ridiculous. The fixed warlock isn't more powerful/effective than the simple 4e classes, but it is on the same level as a rogue, or non optimized ranger. That is good design. Complex and simple classes should not have different efficacy levels.
Intricacy isn't part of the balance equation. And if it were, needing higher system mastery to make the thing should mean that doing so is rewarded, not punished.

The problem with that is that system mastery gains a double reward - not only does the expert player get more power simply by virtue of being the expert player (which is inevitable), but they also gain access to more powerful classes that are not suitable for the new player.

It's the same problem as the 1st/2nd Ed idea that characters with high Prime Requisites gained bonus XP - not only did they have characters who were already better, but they also gained power more quickly than those without. (Of course, that was often a triple bonus, as those high stats also gave access to better classes as well.)

 

[Mistwell]

Let's say a pizza place that only sells pepperoni pizza has the best pizza in the world. That's fine and all but sometimes I get sick of pepperoni and I want something else.

So go to a restaurant where they have a bigger menu. Stop walking into the pepperoni pizza place and going to everyone's table while they are eating and telling them "I am tired of pepperoni pizza!" And then if we try and tell you why we like pepperoni pizza and this restaurant just how it is, you dismiss our opinion anyway and tell us we're illogical for liking this place with only one thing on the menu. It's like the only thing you want to hear in response from people is, "yeah I am tired of pepperoni pizza too!" But, we're all here at the pepperoni pizza place eating right now for a reason - we like it. It's OK if you want to go to a different restaurant - but why won't you go there and let us eat our delicious pepperoni pizza among others who also love this pizza and place just how it is?

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not confuting that Paizo is a smaller company, that makes less money, because that's certainly the case now. However, citing only Amazon numbers is a bit misleading, since D&D books are far cheaper on Amazon and also, WotC doesn't have their own webshop and distributing channel, but Paizo does.

WOTC does have their own webshop. But more importantly...

Every single objective indicator we have, indicates that 5e is well outselling Pathfinder right now.
The Amazon Bestseller List.
The Barnes and Noble Bestseller List
The New York Times Bestseller List
The ICv2 Report of Retail Sales
The Hot Games List of what RPGs are being discussed on the Internet Right Now
The Hasbro Quarterly Report which (under FTC regulation for accuracy) listed D&D as materially profitable to the company (it's first mention that way ever).
Mearls and Crawford confirming the PHB has outsold the PHB from any other edition on record, with Eric Mona confirming the Pathfinder core book sold less than one of those prior books.
Mass media coverage of D&D by non-D&D sources compared to mass media coverage of Pathfinder.
Eric Mona admitting the entire RPG market was lifted by D&D 5e coming out and describing Pathfinder in terms of a "post-5th Edition paradigm".

There are more but by now I hope I made my point. And most of these indicators were perfectly acceptable to Pathfinder fans when Pathfinder was the game that they were indicating at the time was doing better than D&D, so it would be pretty hypocritical to claim suddenly they're not good indicators now that they are indicating something different.

 

[JeffB]

So go to a restaurant where they have a bigger menu. Stop walking into the pepperoni pizza place and going to everyone's table while they are eating and telling them "I am tired of pepperoni pizza!" And then if we try and tell you why we like pepperoni pizza and this restaurant just how it is, you dismiss our opinion anyway and tell us we're illogical for liking this place with only one thing on the menu. It's like the only thing you want to hear in response from people is, "yeah I am tired of pepperoni pizza too!" But, we're all here at the pepperoni pizza place eating right now for a reason - we like it. It's OK if you want to go to a different restaurant - but why won't you go there and let us eat our delicious pepperoni pizza among others who also love this pizza and place just how it is?

Or you could just eat your pepperoni pizza and enjoy it, and ignore the people who don't agree with you. We are stting at a different table. Stop listening to our conversation. There are tables here for everyone.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The problem with that is that system mastery gains a double reward - not only does the expert player get more power simply by virtue of being the expert player (which is inevitable), but they also gain access to more powerful classes that are not suitable for the new player.

It's the same problem as the 1st/2nd Ed idea that characters with high Prime Requisites gained bonus XP - not only did they have characters who were already better, but they also gained power more quickly than those without. (Of course, that was often a triple bonus, as those high stats also gave access to better classes as well.)

Except that isnt necessarily true. The warlock in 4e is much more complex than the ranger, rogue, fighter, or warlord. From the phb, the warlock is the weakest class. After the math overhaul the class got, it is on par with them. At no point is it more powerful. Complexity does not mean more efficacy.

The warlock rewards the complex player with a rewarding gameplay experience. It's a really fun class. Power level needn't come into it.

 

[delericho]

Except that isnt necessarily true. The warlock in 4e is much more complex than the ranger, rogue, fighter, or warlord. From the phb, the warlock is the weakest class. After the math overhaul the class got, it is on par with them. At no point is it more powerful. Complexity does not mean more efficacy.

The warlock rewards the complex player with a rewarding gameplay experience. It's a really fun class. Power level needn't come into it.

I wasn't talking about the 4e Warlock at all. Rather, the post I was replying to ended by indicating that "needing higher system mastery to make the thing should mean that doing so is rewarded, not punished." It followed on directly from that statement.

 

[Mistwell]

Or you could just eat your pepperoni pizza and enjoy it, and ignore the people who don't agree with you. We are stting at a different table. Stop listening to our conversation. There are tables here for everyone.

If you believe that, why are you replying to my message which was in reply to someone else? I think you will find the answer you give is roughly the same response I'd make to you.