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

[delericho]

Look, if you didn't read the whole post, that's on you. I was super clear in that post that the reward I was talking about was not a higher power level. If you only read part of a thing, and then respond to it with false assumptions, that is entirely and exclusively on you.

Ah, I see. I apologise for the misunderstanding. While I did read the whole of your post, that wasn't clear to me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ah, I see. I apologise for the misunderstanding. While I did read the whole of your post, that wasn't clear to me.

Sorry. I was a bit excessive in expressing my frustration there. It's no excuse, but I'm still trying to get used to the blood sugar drops that come with my new diabetes meds, if I don't eat often enough.

Anyway, I think we actually agree on the points we were both trying to make! Lol

 

[Hussar]

At the end of the day though, it comes down to math. No one wants a new edition do they? No one wants a new edition next year anyway. We don't want it (I think) and WOTC certainly doesn't want that.

So, what's a healthy release schedule for new editions? We went about 10 years (ish) between AD&D editions. Then D&D went into overdrive and we got new PHB's every three years or so. And that led to all sorts of boom and bust cycles. And, let's not forget, that the switch from 3e to 3.5 basically sank almost all the 3rd party publishers. By midway through 3.5, you had what, 3, maybe 4 companies making 3PP with any regularity. Other than a few page pdf's, there was pretty much no 3pp support after a very short while because no one wanted to hitch their wagon to a game that's going to turn around and make their product obsolete in a year.

While that might be fine in some industries, in print, that's not very healthy.

So, we're probably back to a 10 year cycle. Lots of time for other publishers to get in, make a bit of dosh, and not lose their shirt when a new edition rolls around. Lots of time for every WotC book to pretty much have room for a healthy sales run.

We're getting 2-3 books a year it looks like. That means by the end of 10 years, we're looking at about 30 (ish) books. That's a pretty healthy product line. That's lots of choices and lots of time to make sure those choices are actually GOOD choices.

I'm failing to see the downside here.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Depending on stuff like the D&D movie we could see an increase in stuff as well.

 

[delericho]

At the end of the day though, it comes down to math. No one wants a new edition do they? No one wants a new edition next year anyway. We don't want it (I think) and WOTC certainly doesn't want that.

Well, actually...

I don't want a new edition, but there's a big part of me that wouldn't mind seeing a 5.5e at all. There's an awful lot I like about 5e, but there are also a lot of what were once called "proud nails" - little things that are bearable but which are just annoying.

So, yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing WotC taking another crack at some of the monster design (like in 3.5e, or 4e's "Monster Vault"), encounter building, monster design (though here I think the system works okay, but is just really badly explained), and a few other things.

We're getting 2-3 books a year it looks like.

3 books a year is actually great... if it's the right books. But I can well understand the frustrations of people who don't like published adventures and/or don't like FR and/or have just found CoS and SKT to be underwhelming (not least because I fall into that last camp). For me, WotC have an awful lot riding on their 2-3 books for 2017 - that's probably going to be make or break for me with this edition.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I haven't reread all my posts upthread, but I think this is similar to the point I was making.

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.

<snip>

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

intricacy should not be punished. That's ridiculous.

<snip>

needing higher system mastery to make the thing should mean that doing so is rewarded, not punished.

In my experience, many RPGs reward the ability to engage in intricate PC building by making such characters more mechanically effective.

I think the 4e archer-ranger is not an instance of this phenomenon - it is not really an ideal vehicle for intricacy of building, and it is quite effective without needing to engage in intricate building.

Conversely - and putting to one side the issue of maths fixes (I assume you're referring to the Class Compendium revisions?) - the warlock needs intricate building and careful play to be mechanically effective.

I think this is a good thing - the class that is clearly suited to intricacy should not be more powerful in virtue of such, but rather should require such to reach parity.

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.

I think intricacy is part of the balance equation, in the way I've described above.

If a class that rewards intricacy is powerful even when someone who is bad at intricacy uses it, it will tend to be overpowered when someone who is good at intricacy uses it. (I'm thinking eg of a classic D&D magic-user above, say, 4th level; the comparable characters in Rolemaster; points-buy games in general; etc). Therefore the design goal should be that, if someone builds their character intricately they reach parity with the simple classes. Hence power-gamers/system-masters, who get the pleasure in building intricately, don't also get a mechanically more effective character.

I guess there is then the danger of a trap - a player who isn't good at intricacy likes the flavour of (say) the warlock and thereby gets stuck with a sucky character - but I think that is the lesser evil than having a vehicle for overpoweredness. It just means that players who aren't good at intricacy should be pointed towards the archer ranger, and will easily achieve a character that is not sucky.

 

[delericho]

I haven't reread all my posts upthread, but I think this is similar to the point I was making.

Just a quick note: [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] and I spent a number of posts talking past each other and getting quite heated about the subject. That being the case, I'm hoping to drop out of this bit of the thread - I think we've just about made our peace, but I'd rather not inflame it again.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Just a quick note: @doctorbadwolf and I spent a number of posts talking past each other and getting quite heated about the subject. That being the case, I'm hoping to drop out of this bit of the thread - I think we've just about made our peace, but I'd rather not inflame it again.

This.

One quick clarification, though.

When i I talk about the warlock math fix I'm talking about the errata math overhaul the warlock got, where they fixed the curse damage scaling, and errata'd a ton of the warlock's powers to better fit where their damage should be.
It was great, and I'm still a little peeved they didn't do the same for any other classes, like the assassin.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We're getting 2-3 books a year it looks like. That means by the end of 10 years, we're looking at about 30 (ish) books. That's a pretty healthy product line.

I'm failing to see the downside here.

There's a clear downside if the kewl stuff you're hankering for is in one of those 2 or 3 books not published until year 10, I suppose.

Y'know what might've been a slightly better approach? More emphasis on player options and low-level adventures the first half of the run, more emphasis on higher level modules the last few years...

But overall, I agree that that 2-3 books a year is a sane pace, heck, I wouldn't hate 1 book a year if it was a book with some good crunch most years.

 

[Parmandur]

Depending on stuff like the D&D movie we could see an increase in stuff as well.

Folks in these parts underestimate the movie effect: it will probably be a literal game hanger, no matter what level of quality or hit ot ends up being.