Lokiare, your whole premise is that 5e contains 'imbalances' that make you not want to play it.
All I've heard so far are system differences, not imbalances. Just becuase D&D Next has things that are different from 4e, does not mean they are imbalanced. I'd love to hear and discuss some actual imbalances you percieve are in the game. Things like classes doing too much damage, spells that are too powerful, builds or combinations that are abusive and overpowered, etc.
Nope. You are mischaracterizing my argument. Go back and read it again. Let me rephrase it for you to make it clearer (I know I am not the best communicator):
Wizards have more flexibility than Fighters, not only this but they can deal the same amount of damage as fighters (which is one of the things that Fighters are supposed to be good at). In addition they can shut encounters down without dealing damage, just recently I did the math on the Web spell in the last public packet. If not changed low level casters will be able to shut down encounters that don't have fire for 2-4 rounds. At higher levels it will be 4-6 rounds.
I could care less if 5E is different from 4E. I'm sure there is some way to balance Vancian casting with at-will attacks (Fighters vs. Wizards in 5E), however they aren't doing it in 5E from what we can see.
You also seem to be assuming 4th Edition contained no 'imbalances'
4th Edition was rife with powers that were clearly overpowered 'A+' choices.
And as a DM, I consider combat grind, impotent monsters, indestructable characters, and near limitless in-combat healing to be quite imbalanced.
No where did I say 4E didn't have imbalances. It had less imbalances and was harder to break than editions previous to it. It was a step forward to the kind of game I want to play. It was not the end goal.
What does complexity have to do with imbalance?
Also, when comparing control of the cosmic forces of nature to the hard training of becoming a melee/ranged combatant, there should be a higher level of complexity. I don't want power riddled fighters that act like wizards unless they are a fighter/mage type. I want fighters who fight.
This is another mischaracterization. I am talking about flexibility and the ability for casters to outmatch other classes with their spells. So their emergent property is that they can do anything in the game where a non-caster character can only do a few things.
We don't have to have power riddled fighters. We can have a simple fighter that gets static bonuses right alongside a Fighter that can expend, burn, or whatever expertise dice to simulate a more tactical type experience. The mistake people make is assuming it has to be one way or the other and can't be both at the same time (but not for the same character).
If the playtest docs were the published product, you might have a point.
It's like you're looking at a caterpillar and saying that your problem with it is the fact that it doesn't have beautiful butterfly wings.
Even if you're right, you're dismissing out-of-hand the idea that it can and will change. Since the playtest documents are explicitly made to develop the eventual game, you should expect changes, even changes you haven't heard about. Maybe this will be one of them!
I can only work with the facts and evidence that has been presented. What we've been presented so far does not indicate they will make any changes to alleviate my fears. They could well change the entire game up before release, but there are no INDICATIONS that this is going to happen.
We've been over this before: Absense of evidence is not proof of change.
Now if I've missed an article where they talk about fixing these things or discuss them, please, post a link. I'll definitely read over it and change my tune. For now though there is no EVIDENCE or FACTS to base a change of my opinion on.
As I think Umbran already tried to explain, there is a significant difference between "criticism" and "constructive criticism". You seem to think criticism alone is inherently constructive. It's not. You're frequently missing the "constructive" part of it. And at this late stage of the playtest cycle, non-constructive criticism stands a zero percent chance of altering the game in any way. If designers are even exposed to your criticism at all , it will be summarily dismissed if it's not constructive in nature. And as your stated goal is to "rescue" your playstyle from Next, I'd think you'd want to employ the type of critical tone most likely to get a change in the game - and that tone is constructive in nature, not merely critical.
Can you explain (and possibly give an example) of how I could frame my concerns in a more 'constructive' way without losing any of the content?
If all I have to do is present solutions to the problems, I've already done that in other threads. If needed I'll do it in this thread too and we can discuss that.
The reason there isn’t OAs due to movement around an enemy is because fine movement that provokes does not work without minis, so it has to be simple.
One of the assumptions of a tactical module is more granular OAs. When 2e added more tactics, OAs were one of the first things added, this should be the case here as well. Moving away from someone’s front should provoke an OA (or the character could have the opportunity to forge the OA to turn).
I understand why they don't have OA's in 5E, but the problem is if you add them in with a module then you end up changing how everything works and class features and spells completely change. A spell that was not overpowered can become worthless or overpowered with a change like this. Something like Stinking Cloud that stops creatures from taking actions, suddenly becomes a game changer because as long as they can't take an action to turn or OA the Rogue can now sneak attack every round with no problems. Suddenly that BBEG goes down in 2 rounds instead of 5. There are many of these interactions. Fear is another one. Suddenly creatures must flee and take OA's left and right. Which means a group using the tactical module get 4-5 extra attacks per round. They run up hit the target and then the target runs and then they get OA's.
The whole point of rules modules is altering the base combat rules. Or rather, adding to the rules.
If the game is designed to be modular, the designers should be able to change how movement, OAs, and the like work without needing to change classes.
The effects of the change will alter the balance of the classes. A class that can only get sneak attacks when the target isn't aware of them, suddenly gets to sneak attack much more often because being behind someone qualifies in the same way that flanking qualifies. Spells that prevent movment suddenly become ultra important instead of other spells.
Think of it this way, classes refer to “Advantage”. The rules regularly refer to “Advantage”. But Advantage is only defined in the core rules and class options don’t modify what Advantage does. It’s basically a keyword. Which makes it modular. So you could strip out the “roll twice” mechanic and make it a +2 without affecting any classes. The game is unchanged.
5e makes it easy. You could dump d20s and go with 3d6 instead and the game would hum along with only one or two minor hiccups (in this instance, Advantage could be adding a d6, and stack).
I agree with this and they should design the game this way and let modules redefine keywords. Unfortunately keywords were used heavily in 4E and so they will be largely forgotten in 5E, when they could be used to solve 85% of the problems most of us have with the game.
The constant sliding and shifting of 4e often didn’t add much either. There was a lot of movement for movement’s sake. Just because the designers didn’t want the static fights of 3e where everyone planted and full attacked (which were boring).
I disagree. Combined with Zones, OAs and other 4E mechanics, it made the game much more tactical. You could set up a zone and force move an enemy into the zone so that on the start of their turn they took damage or gained a negative condition. You could move a bunch of enemies into the knights aura (or a player out of an enemies aura) to completely change up the situation in an encounter.
I think 5e could have a nice middle ground in movement between the rooted combatants of 3e and the dancing fights of 4e. Having opponents run around enemies works, so you have to be in the right square to get a bonus not just beside your enemy. And having enemies disengage and move across the battlefield also works. And positioning matters, so you fight with your back against a wall or some terrain.
I've already explained why this doesn't work, without 5' OAs character can alway move to the most advantagous position (even if your back is against the wall they can move to your side and get a lesser bonus). It ends up with the best tactic being to go back to back with an ally or find a wall to put your back to. It just recreates a different kind of static battle rather than a dynamic tactical battle.
They can't add any option that is so good it obviates the need for another option and that's about all facing does.
I don’t think we need the slow facing of Battletech where turning eats movement. You should be able to 360 as part of movement. And, as mentioned before, you might be able to spin using your reaction (or as part of your reaction).
There are already too many things that eat your reaction up. Its already an overloaded mechanic. If you can spin using your reaction, then there is no point to facing. You could easily just say "lose your reaction if a creature moves around you or take a -2 penalty to AC and saves" and save quite a bit of page space.
The same could be said for ANY addition to the game that is not personally desired.
No it really can't. I'm basing things on math and logic and its pretty clear that facing was removed from the game for some very good reasons.
But what does it add to the game?
1) Defensive positioning matters
2) Offensive positioning matters
3) Movement encouraged.
4) Encourages tactical thinking
5) Encourages teamwork
1) Refuted, it only matters to eat up your reaction or everyone gets it.
2) See 1.
3) Movement is no more encouraged than if you gave them a choice between a +2 or take away the enemies reaction. In fact movement is discouraged because characters would go back to back and stand still or find a wall and stand still.
4) It really doesn't. It encourages a 'best way to play' which should be discouraged.
5) You haven't demonstrated this, unless you mean back to back play which is static and not tactical. It becomes one of those non-choices.
Does it complicate things? Yes. But that’s the point. Tactical combat is by definition more complicated than Theatre of the Mind. In this case, complexity is a good thing.
Complexity is almost never a good thing on its own. If you add complexity you want to be sure and add more choices or a better play experience and facing really doesn't add enough to justify the complexity.
I was just brainstorming and giving examples. The balance is irrelevant as it’s just proof of concept: the names just make it easier than if I used <generic condition X> and <vague penalty Y>. Replace “daze” with a condition equivalent to “prone” or “forced movement”. But nastier penalties might come with penalties making them harder to pull off but thus more satisfying when they work.
There’s lots of options. Forced movement, penalties to attacks, penalties to AC, penalties to saves, penalties to movement, grabbing, tripping, etc. There could even be a “power attack” option where you take a penalty to attack to deal more damage.
The problem is different conditions and benefits and penalties have different effects on the game. If you add something like this into a tactical module you completely change the balance of the game. You would have to test every combination to realize that the Fighter can impose 3 conditions and deal quite a bit of damage each round and that might be a little overpowered (though still not as powerful as the casters).
I doubt the base game will have the combat maneuvers at all. Those kind of powers tend to hinder creativity and free form combat. It’s hard to justify allowing a character to spontaneously trip an enemy when there are a dozen powers that prone: if they wanted to trip they should have taken a tripping class feature.
The maneuvers really fit an “advanced” game, and also the Tactical Module. Trip and bull rush are situational, but you can use them whenever you want without the penalty of 3e. (And, really, trip is pretty darn useful in most situations.) So when they are useful you have them at your disposal. Plus, having them be situational keeps them manageable so you don’t have a dozen options each round dragging combat to a crawl.
This is the classic either/or arguement. Having codified powers in no way prevents improvisation. A codified power should only be slightly more reliable, but anyone can try anything, which is why I liked 4E's page 42. It worked great. You could emulate a powers effecs, but you usually had to make some kind of skill roll which meant you had less chance of succeeding, but nothing was off the table. In fact in my 4E level 1 game yesterday I had a Rogue improvise an attack by jumping through a hole in a roof and landing on a gnoll. In 4E when you improvise, the DM, can choose to make it a skill check against a defense which I did and because getting back up to the hole in the roof would have been a pain and taken a few rounds I chose the medium limited damage category so the Rogue did slightly more damage than his regular attack.
The only benefit a codified power gives is reliability.
And I would very much argue they promote “tactical” thinking. Being able to push an enemy at will (in place of damage or at a penalty to attack) means you can set-up a flank or take advantage of the terrain. Knocking down or immobilizing a fast opponent allows slower allies to get close. This is the definition of tactical teamwork.
This is very situational. It only works if you will deal twice as much damage the next round than you would if you just attacked or if there is some negative condition you apply that is worth giving up your potential damage. I can see for thematic reasons that this might appeal to people, but from a mechanics perspective it doesn't make sense at all.
In fact I made an encounter where the players were in a locked room against a golem that was many levels higher than them. There were holes all around the room and I wanted them to try to defeat it by pushing it into a hole. At first they tried this, but after a few rounds of not being able to do it due to some unlucky rolls, they realized how much damage they could have done and switched to attacking it with daily and encounter powers and overcame it coming close to death. It was literally better for them to deal damage to it than to try to push it into a pit.
And, as they’re universal powers, everyone at the table knows them. This was a problem with the tactics of 4e where you didn’t always know from session to session what your party member’s powers were.
Unless people were swapping out characters every session, the powers didn't change. You got a new power on level up and an option to retrain one power you already knew. So maximum on some session changes you might have each player having up to 2 powers you didn't know about. In fact this problem is worse in 5E because casters can swap out quite a few 'powers' on each extended rest.
"I thought you had fireball, that's why I clumped them up for you." "Nope, I have lightning bolt this time."
Basically, instead of having two dozen individual powers with every possible combination of conditions and actions (of which you can pick five) you have a half-dozen options you can stack with a basic attack, building powers on the fly.
Which is not in and of itself bad, but with everyone having that ability it cheapens classes whose features grant them the ability to apply one of those conditions. If a Monk's big draw is his ability to grapple, when suddenly everyone can grapple, then there is no reason to play the Monk.
Casters can do that a certain number of times per day. But sometimes they’re lacking a condition or effect they need. And certain subclasses fighters can impose the conditions without penalty as well, so there’s no difference there. It’s beneficial to have a power that allows you to do it, but you have the options if you lack a specific ability.
For the most part, with the exception of low level, casters will almost never run out of spells and due to the neo-vancian system they can choose several negative condition spells and cast the one they want when they want. Which makes them extremely versatile. You can also improvise and do it anyway, which would make a tactical module that granted things like this redundant.
The classes are (almost) balanced as is. Adding more options and powers to only some classes make them better than the spellcasters. It unbalances the game. So any additions in the Tactical Module would have to be independent of class and applied universally.
Similarly, the universal powers would apply to monsters. This gives monsters tactical depth without rewriting the entire Monster Manual.
The monster part is true, but the rest of it is not really true. I've proven mathematically over and over that the casters are not anywhere balanced with non-casters, not even close. In fact you would have to add quite a few powers to non-casters to get them close to the level of the casters. However that's not what I want added to the game in anyway. I want additional choices at level up, and from round to round that make sense within a class and promote tactical play. Giving everyone the same options does not promote tactical play. It gives them an optimal handbook that they then repeat over and over and it doesn't matter what class they are playing.
Plus, the modules should work independent of content so it can be used with classes released much later in the edition's lifespan, in campaign settings where certain classes are missing, and the like. It cannot just be “the Fighter Module” because that will mean people playing in a world where everyone has some magical talent (and no “fighters” exist) cannot also have a tactical game.
I agree with this, modules content should work regardless of class choice, however this is just a reason not to put it in a module. It should be baked into the game at a core level with the option of ignoring it or of choosing another option instead. Otherwise you end up with modules conflicting and possibly skewing the balance of the game to extremes.
It’s strategic play. Giving up personal damage one round to allow your allies to do more damage or avoid damage taken.
Really, this is no different from 4e. You have powers that just did damage, powers that did less damage but imposed lesser effects, and powers that did no damage but imposed harsher effects. Only instead of choosing one and having to stick with that choice every combat, you can pick-and-choose each round. This is taking that same thing and breaking it into component pieces allowing far, far more options with far less space.
The key difference is that each class had unique powers so that you had to choose a class and then choose powers that complemented your party or formed a strategy. This would not be so in a universal tactical module.
Sometimes it will just descend into always picking damage. The best status effect to impose on a creature is “dead”. But good tactical play should also involve the environment and terrain, and a good DM (provided with solid advice) can encourage the use of maneuvers.
This is only true in 4E because everyone has enough hit points to withstand several hits so its actually beneficial to impose a condition that will give everyone an advantage. In 5E this isn't so. There is no condition in the game worth giving up an attack, because most of the time an attack that deals damage is enough to bloody or defeat an enemy.
Again, the Tactical Module should be independent of class and race.
I don’t even think there should be class-specific options, as that would mean if the DM wanted to play a tactical game you HAD to pick from certain subclasses or builds. Play style should not limit build choices.
However, class and race are not an afterthought because the existing options still work. They can do everything they could before, only now they have a few more options. Enough to provide meaningful options each combat round.
Yes, which is why it could/should be a slightly different module, albeit one that should work with the Tactical Module and can be paired together to add a 4e feel to Next.
The thing is even with the more simple Essentials classes you could get many tactical options because of things like aura's and stances or a choice of at-will attacks. Complexity has almost nothing to do with tactical choices. You can have very simple tactical choices based on just a few emergent properties.
Typically, constructive criticism takes place in a context where the critic's goal is to help their subject make a better product or performance. That's why criticism from the likes of film or TV critics is generally neutral rather than constructive - their job is to list what they liked and didn't like, then provide a recommendation. People like the forum posters here are in a position, albeit a very informal one, of helping WotC make the best new D&D possible. So it's the right place for constructive criticism.
Fundamental to the process is remembering that 5e is being made by human beings, who appreciate encouragement for the good parts of their work, and would prefer negative commentary to be clear & to the point so they can address it. Hyperbolic remarks concerning how dismissive the design team is of particular gamers, game styles or game aspects have no place in constructive criticism, and should be omitted.
I'm not sure how this post applies to anything I've posted in this thread, can you point out specifics?
Fighters have always been my favorite class to play and I am a recovering Warhammer addict myself. . .
