D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Nemesis Destiny]

I dont think these issues are as black and white as you are shading the, nemesis destiny.

The only thing that is black and white about this is that WotC will include the options I want, or they won't.

There are plenty of people who find 3E balanced. It all depends on your assumptions about what a balanced game means. For me 3E boosted wizard powers too much, but 2E felt right.

I can agree to this. I played a wizard to double-digit levels in 2e, and he was strong, but not broken, even using a lot of the "potent" spells. When I converted him to 3.x for a mini campaign, he was utterly broken, and I didn't even get into CharOp until years later (at the time my attitude still fell under the Stormwind Fallacy).

3E could easily have been brought into balance for me by adopting better use of casting times, spell backfires, and decreasing the numbers of spells characters get each level.

I tried all this stuff when I ran 3.x, but it didn't help me much. YMMV.

Giving fighters a baseline damage bonus that increases with level wouldnt have been a bad idea either specialization approaches this but could go further).

I don't find this to be a very satisfying solution. I think it's an okay option for those who want to play "simple" fighters, but I want more from my martial heroes. If I don't get those options, I have no incentive to pick up 5e, since I already have a game that gives me what I want and has an underlying structure that I prefer.

Either way, the issue here is total class parity isnt necessarily the same thing as balance. For a lot of gamers there are other ways to balance classes, that do a much better job of capturing the D&D flavor they want. Like I said its a subjective preference a playstyle issue. People are going to disagree. That doesnt mean those who do are just refusing to accept the facts. They have legitimately different experiences of the game and reactions to the system.

You don't need to lecture me on what class balance means, and I am not advocating for parity, if by 'parity' you mean breadth of ability, I agree; I don't see any teleporting, flying, polymorphing, fireball-tossing single-class fighters in any edition. Every martial class has their own schtick in 4e, and so do spellcasters, and I should note that spellcasters are still potent, perhaps still moreso than mundanes, but the gap is narrower, to the point where I'm okay with it, for the mostpart.

However, if by 'parity' you mean AEDU structures or giving mundanes vancian resource-management, then I don't necessarily agree. I don't see why this type of balance can't even be an option in Next (as so far, it's not), much like how post-Essentials, 4e has options for 'simple' mundane classes that still feel adequate (if somewhat boring for me), and yet the game remains fully compatible with the AEDU structure classes.

 

[Guest 85555]

The only thing that is black and white about this is that WotC will include the options I want, or they won't.

I can agree to this. I played a wizard to double-digit levels in 2e, and he was strong, but not broken, even using a lot of the "potent" spells. When I converted him to 3.x for a mini campaign, he was utterly broken, and I didn't even get into CharOp until years later (at the time my attitude still fell under the Stormwind Fallacy).

I tried all this stuff when I ran 3.x, but it didn't help me much. YMMV.
I don't find this to be a very satisfying solution. I think it's an okay option for those who want to play "simple" fighters, but I want more from my martial heroes. If I don't get those options, I have no incentive to pick up 5e, since I already have a game that gives me what I want and has an underlying structure that I prefer.

i would agree with you that 3E can get pretty broken. The only place where I disagree with you is I think it can be managed and I think for lots ofplayers it doesnt emerge as an issue.

You don't need to lecture me on what class balance means, and I am not advocating for parity, if by 'parity' you mean breadth of ability, I agree; I don't see any teleporting, flying, polymorphing, fireball-tossing single-class fighters in any edition. Every martial class has their own schtick in 4e, and so do spellcasters, and I should note that spellcasters are still potent, perhaps still moreso than mundanes, but the gap is narrower, to the point where I'm okay with it, for the mostpart.

i am not trying to lecture you, but with all due respect your assesment of balance in the last post was pretty dismissive of different approaches. I am merely pointing out there is more than one way to approach balance in D&D. What way will satisfy the most people is amother issue, but I dont think there is anything inherently wrong with these different approahces.

However, if by 'parity' you mean AEDU structures or giving mundanes vancian resource-management, then I don't necessarily agree. I don't see why this type of balance can't even be an option in Next (as so far, it's not), much like how post-Essentials, 4e has options for 'simple' mundane classes that still feel adequate (if somewhat boring for me), and yet the game remains fully compatible with the AEDU structure classes.

I am not saying the parity approach cant be an option or isnt workable (it absolutely is). Only that it isnt the only way and it isnt for everyone. Personally I find the 4E parity way of doing things a bit dull (but then others find it highly exciting) while I find the classic 2E approach of wizard advances slowly but gets more powerful while having some disadvantages in terms of things like casting time, hp, etc to work well for balance (yet others find that approach horrbly imbalanced). So all I am saying is what is balanced for one person, isnt necessarily so for another, and what is broken for one person isnt necesarily so for another.

In terms of what they should do in next, I dont know. Clearly there is a big divide around how they approach casters and fighters. I would think splitting it down the middle and offering two alternate methods would be best (that way I keep my classic fighter-wizard dynamic while you can get something closer to 4E). I would view it a bit like choosing an ability score generation method at the start ofplay. Some groupsnmight even be okay mixing them inside a single campaign.

 

[innerdude]

I pretty much have no patience remaining with "4e is not D&D."

-O

It's definitely D&D. In some ways it's the most "D&D of D&D," or D&D taken to a particular logical extension. It's much less to my taste than 3.x or BECMI, but even so, definitely D&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think caster balance is a legitimate concern, but I also think this assertion is hotly debated among gamers. Just like people debate how believable CAGI is, people also debate how imbalanced 3E and earlier editions are (I happen to think 3E has some balance issues, but that they are not as bad as people often say, at least not for me). Ultimately, like CAGI, it is largely a playstyle issue. Plenty of people who believe 3E is balanced or can be, would probably take issues with some of the arguments stating it is imbalanced (and characterize them as unfair or not entirely accurate). Personally I think because this so frequently comes down to playstyle, what problems you do run into will vary considerably from table to table (which is why I think its a legitimate concern). But the question of whether the resolution is to give the fighter powers in the way that a wizard has powers, is something folks are quite divided about.

IMHO "3.x full casters are vastly more powerful in most situations than non-casters" is a VASTLY more concrete statement than "CaGI is a dissociated power and 4e powers generally cause dissociation." The first is purely about the mechanics of the game. I disagree that it is related at all to playstyle. You may, because of your playstyle, consider it to be a non-issue, or you may even by dint of either extensively reworking the game's default assumptions or carefully crafting every situation to heavily disfavor casters not be bothered by this situation. It is still a PURELY MECHANICAL problem. You could likewise call a system with a completely dysfunctional combat system a 'playstyle problem' because you could hypothetically avoid all combat in that game. Meanwhile the dissociation problem is fundamentally one that is subjective and depends on whether or not the game meets your needs or not. Thus I don't find the two discussions in any way equivalent. 3.x has a fundamental systematic game mechanical issue, 4e doesn't. Now, you might say that the issue with 4e is more pernicious from your point of view because it isn't really a 'solvable' problem at all, unless you are willing to think differently about how you play, whereas you could for instance simply ban full casters as PCs from your 3.5 game and manage to get by, though it will play a bit differently in a purely tactical sort of sense.

OTOH MY personal perspective is that the issue with 3.x is far more vexatious because solving it effectively requires rewriting a large part of the game, whereas I'd never even have noticed the whole "that's dissociated" thing if people hadn't brought it up. For me different games assume different stances and roles for participants, that's just how it is. They're all fun games and I don't really have a big desire to even analyze them except inasmuch as it might give me ideas for how to run a game better. I liked the PSF thread because it had interesting useful ideas, but I could care less about the theory of it and I can as happily play heavily narrative focused games as I can heavily process simulationist 1st person exploration fests. What I dislike are games where playing one specific sort of character is trivially superior to playing other types. That always struck me as basically sloppy game design. I always forgave D&D on that score as being the first attempt at an RPG and AD&D was just regrettably carrying on the same design with the same basic flaws. Frankly when I looked at 3e my reaction was "this is still cocked up and I'm sick of it". 4e was the first time I looked at a D&D rule book and thought "well, someone actually thought about game design here". That's all that matters to me in the final analysis.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

<<your last post>>

Can't rep this, but I wanted to; summed up what I was trying to say in my post WRT the origin of the issues being mechanical vs. aesthetic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I am not saying the parity approach cant be an option or isnt workable (it absolutely is). Only that it isnt the only way and it isnt for everyone. Personally I find the 4E parity way of doing things a bit dull (but then others find it highly exciting) while I find the classic 2E approach of wizard advances slowly but gets more powerful while having some disadvantages in terms of things like casting time, hp, etc to work well for balance (yet others find that approach horrbly imbalanced). So all I am saying is what is balanced for one person, isnt necessarily so for another, and what is broken for one person isnt necesarily so for another.

In terms of what they should do in next, I dont know. Clearly there is a big divide around how they approach casters and fighters. I would think splitting it down the middle and offering two alternate methods would be best (that way I keep my classic fighter-wizard dynamic while you can get something closer to 4E). I would view it a bit like choosing an ability score generation method at the start ofplay. Some groupsnmight even be okay mixing them inside a single campaign.

I just go to the purely objective "what does this rules structure enable" POV. The great beauty of AEDU and other related aspects of 4e is that it creates a very flexible system. It is EASY to exchange powers between classes, easy to create items and feats that make sense in the context of any character of any class which might use them, and many of the other rules can be far more concise and have broader applicability because every class 'speaks the same language'. I'd note that 3.5 for instance became VERY VERY obtuse and complex in practice over time. Much reduplication and variations of things exist merely because applying a similar concept to different classes requires entirely new sets of rules and each new class requires entirely new class mechanics and introduces a whole new dimension of interactions with the features of all the other classes. 4e elegantly avoids all this. I'm simply not interested in regression such as DDN to a hodge-podge type of design. As far as I'm concerned, unless you really seriously sit down and TRY to find reasons to dislike it, the whole 4e style of class design works fine. I'm just not interested in all those arguments anymore. WotC can give me what I want or they can not get my trade. Honestly debating this side of things no longer interests me. Clearly from a system standpoint 4e simply works better, period. The rest is up to me. Likewise the argument about 3e balance is uninteresting. 3e is simply radically unbalanced as presented, etc. It is pointless to argue about. You can work around it or not care about it, but its just an objective fact and all the "its your approach" arguments don't wash IMHO.

 

[JustinAlexander]

Oh, I don't deny that disassociation is a very real thing. On the other hand I'm 99% certain The Alexandrian's analysis of disassociation is superficial and misleading.

Everyone should be aware that the first thing Neonchameleon does when he reads something I've written is to rewrite it to say something else that he can then attempt to criticize.

In the past, Neonchameleon has been incredibly vague and contradictory about whatever it is he's talking about when he says "disassociation". But what we can all be really, really positive of is that he's not talking about dissociated mechanics.

For example, here's how I've defined a "dissociated mechanic": "A dissociated mechanic is one which is disconnected from the game world. The easiest way to perceive the difference is to look at the player’s decision-making process when using the mechanic: If the player’s decision can be directly equated to a decision made by the character, then the mechanic is associated. If it cannot be directly equated, then it is dissociated." (link)

And here's what Neonchameleon has said about "disassociation" in this thread: "Disassociation happens when the player's thought processes do not match the designer's."

It should be absolutely trivial for anyone with a passing familiarity with the English language to figure out that whatever Neonchameleon is talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of dissociated mechanics. Despite this, Neonchameleon likes to pretend that whenever someone talks about dissociated mechanics as I've defined them that they're really talking about his vague concept of "disassociation". Why? I'm charitably assuming it's because he likes yelling futilely on messageboards.

MOD NOTE: Getting personal is a great way to shut down the conversation, and that's not what we want. Rather than attacking an individual poster, please direct your comments at the argument itself, rather than your opinion of the person making it. If you don't feel like the argument was made in good faith, it's usually best to ignore it. - KM

 

[Guest 85555]

IMHO "3.x full casters are vastly more powerful in most situations than non-casters" is a VASTLY more concrete statement than "CaGI is a dissociated power and 4e powers generally cause dissociation." The first is purely about the mechanics of the game. I disagree that it is related at all to playstyle. You may, because of your playstyle, consider it to be a non-issue, or you may even by dint of either extensively reworking the game's default assumptions or carefully crafting every situation to heavily disfavor casters not be bothered by this situation. It is still a PURELY MECHANICAL problem. You could likewise call a system with a completely dysfunctional combat system a 'playstyle problem' because you could hypothetically avoid all combat in that game. Meanwhile the dissociation problem is fundamentally one that is subjective and depends on whether or not the game meets your needs or not. Thus I don't find the two discussions in any way equivalent. 3.x has a fundamental systematic game mechanical issue, 4e doesn't. Now, you might say that the issue with 4e is more pernicious from your point of view because it isn't really a 'solvable' problem at all, unless you are willing to think differently about how you play, whereas you could for instance simply ban full casters as PCs from your 3.5 game and manage to get by, though it will play a bit differently in a purely tactical sort of sense.
.

They are not equivalent because you are comparing two very different things. One is a statement about balance and 3E. The other is a statement about a mechanic and 4e. But the broader issue behind cagi is how it breaks immersion and 4E, for me, is littered with such issues. Whether you are talking healing surges ormartial dailies and encounter powers, the game a a very fundamental level just breaks my immersion. This is much more comparable to complaints about balance in 3E. However I would stand by the earlier things I said where it is about preference, not about 4E being objectively immersion breaking or 3E being objectivley poorly balaced. It all boils down to your expecations about balance/believability and your playstyle.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The distinction was specified in line one, he was pointing out the bad faith arguments are one sided. (with improper criticizing of 3e being virtually non-existent)

Or at least that is how I interpret it.

Oh, if that's what he means, then I just gotta kinda laugh that one off. He might be saying there's not bad faith arguments on both sides? Yeah, so not buying that one. As always, play what you like

I think his point was that when someone focuses constantly and nearly exclusively on one tiny bit of a game system and argues that the whole thing is unacceptable based on a theory built around that one tiny piece that isn't even mandatory to use then when it has been pointed out probably 100's of times how trivial that argument is and yet it crops up again and again almost to the exclusion of any other line of discussion then one might begin to consider it not really a discussion that is focused on arriving at anything except to keep harping about that one tiny knit as a way of casting aspersions on the entire system without actually having to engage in a wider-ranging discussion. Some people are labeling this 'bad faith', like Hussar.

So, he'd be agreeing with Bedrockgames saying people argue in bad faith?

It also feels like as of this point, the Come And Get It argument has largely died out, with people quoting Bedrockgames over and over while he keeps saying "it's cool if you're okay with the power, but I'm not." That's not bad faith, in my eyes. The other people discussing it have basically stopped, and while some posters were saying "why even bring CAGI up and argue about it?", there are posters like pemerton who said "I like using it as an example, especially pre-errata."

So we have differing motivations even on the same side of both debates. So things during the conversation get messy, because it seems like people like to lump everyone together of "if you do/don't like it or do/don't want to talk about it, you must share the motivations of everyone else who also likes/dislikes it or does/doesn't want to talk about it." And that's too bad, because I think it hurts the discussion. But that's just my opinion.

Just to clarify, I'm not criticizing Bedrockgames. Frankly I think he's articulated a pretty general explanation for his dislike of 4e. I also think that people tend to focus their arguments down on a single point and latch onto it. That doesn't mean they don't have a more general point, it is just what happens at a certain point when the debate has gone back and forth without any real movement for years at a time now. IMHO its really about time we all just moved on.

Hey, you seem really reasonable, so I get it. Like I said, though, you also have posters like pemerton who want to use it as an example, since it helps him describe the style of play he advocates for. And that's totally cool. Of course, when used as an example, we always wind up in these conversations. And whether you have someone like pemerton who uses it to demonstrate a valid point, or people express dislike for it for whatever reason (innerdude getting perspective, Bedrockgames expressing his preferences, or people unfairly characterizing it or misrepresenting it), we get another kickoff into a long tangent. Personally, I'm okay dropping it. I haven't chimed in the thread for a while because of it. But that's just me, and I understand and accept other people who want to use it as examples for stuff they like/dislike. As always, play what you like

 

[Guest 85555]

It also feels like as of this point, the Come And Get It argument has largely died out, with people quoting Bedrockgames over and over while he keeps saying "it's cool if you're okay with the power, but I'm not." That's not bad faith, in my eyes.

I have to admit I am finding some of the reactions to my posts perplexing because this is basically what I am saying. I have even said Even though 4E isnt for me, I feel wotc should have continued with that line instead of try to win back folks like me. I just dont see how it is bad faith to be completely honest about my feelings toward 4E but at the same time not expect anyone to agree with me. And the only reason I even discuss CAGI at this stage is because it keeps coming up. Every time I provide a reason for why CaGI isnt for me, i am asked to defend thatu reason, so I do (and the while making a point of saying it is just an opinion and not an objective statement aobut it).