D&D 5E cancelled 5e announcement at Gencon??? Anyone know anything about this?

[Mournblade94]

Wicht, you may perceive that people are telling you that you are playing wrong, but apparently 4E fans are narrow, inflexible, problematic, and drunk:



I can't speak for everyone that has commented, Wicht, but I do not think, nor have I meant to imply that you avoid any problems other may have had as you playing wrong.

My problems with 3E do not stem from the 15MAD or disparity in power between casters and non-casters. But I did have problems with power gap. Byron and now BotE claim that I'm "doing it wrong" otherwise I would not encounter the problem like they did. That since I am the one with the problem it must be me "playing drunk" and couldn't possibly be the system.

I do see the problem I had with 3E as systemic. How many people do you see here that call for the solution of banning presitge classes, feats, whole splat books? I've personally seen alot. I've even been told I'm "doing it wrong" by allowing official splat books. Yet, the splats were part of the system by design. Something the developers expected you to use. I'm not saying anyone who didn't use them was wrong, but neither are those of us who did use them. And the system, especially open multiclassing in my experience, failed the add-on of the new books. I have not yet experienced that issue with 4E. I'm not saying it's the right edition for everyone, but it fixed one of my deal-breakers for me.

I am perfectly OK with people recognizing problems in 3rd edition and leaving for 4e. EVERY RPG has its problems and the players choose which problems are unbearable. I do not think players of 4e play wrong. I have long time friends that like to play 4e, and I know how they play. I do not think they suddenly altered their playing style.

Recently in this thread there are alot of people trying to play the 'gotcha game' as if they were trying to get someone like me, or Byron, or wicht, to just say, "Fighters were unplayable." I have seen no evidence of that. I have heard that people have problems with it. I am willing to concede that people had problems that made the game unenjoyable for them. I will not concede that it made D&D 3rd edition unplayable.

Perhaps we can have SPIKE channel do a completely arbitrary documentary on what the better system is, the same way they arbitrarily match up warriors against each other with no historical or scientific context.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

And if the party chooses not to follow an adventuring lead, and the result is that the world is somehow destroyed? That would be an odd choice, as I would think, since it would seem that the party missed out on the most interesting thing happening on their world there. At the very least, I would think both players and characters would want to avert such a thing, but if the world is destroyed, then so be it. Snakes on a plane.

There are other worlds. Roll 4d6 and drop the lowest.

My point is that a group of players could force the 15MAD against the DM's preferences if they are adamant enough. There's nothing in the system encouraging them to not nova and then rest. All of the solutions presented to prevent this are playstyle choices. I agree with those playstyle choices and so do my players, so we never had the 15MAD problem. But the system itself rewards you to unload and then rest and punishes you with lowered resources if you decide to push on.

 

[Pour]

Honestly, guys, neither camp looks too pristine right now. Maybe you should all just let preferences lie and accept that, given the grossly subjective nature of gamers, having such diversity of mechanics, paradigms and overall styles is the single greatest boon for our gaming generation. I mean even The Auld Grump was inspired to make a jab, and I usually like his posts. This sort of back-and-forth brings out the worst in us, and doesn't do anyone any good at this point in the conversation, now that every person, I believe, has made their point, countered, and more or less degenerated to various severities of edition warring and personal attack. There is nothing more to be gained from this thread.

Thread closed... wait, I don't have that power.

Carry on!

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Recently in this thread there are alot of people trying to play the 'gotcha game' as if they were trying to get someone like me, or Byron, or wicht, to just say, "Fighters were unplayable." I have seen no evidence of that. I have heard that people have problems with it. I am willing to concede that people had problems that made the game unenjoyable for them. I will not concede that it made D&D 3rd edition unplayable.

I don't think the claim is that fighters are unplayable (though I could be wrong), but that spellcasters could outshine them in their own role. I do think that there have been times in AD&D and 3x that this occurred. The most glaring to me was the cleric spell find traps. Auto-success while the thief had a low chance to find them? And that was one of the thief's main tasks? This was grating at times, but not a large enough issue to cause a problem for us.

As for making 3E unplayable I think you'd have to add an inferred "for me/us." Otherwise there is objective proof that 3E is still playable as large numbers of people still play and enjoy the game.

 

[Mournblade94]

My point is that a group of players could force the 15MAD against the DM's preferences if they are adamant enough. There's nothing in the system encouraging them to not nova and then rest. All of the solutions presented to prevent this are playstyle choices. I agree with those playstyle choices and so do my players, so we never had the 15MAD problem. But the system itself rewards you to unload and then rest and punishes you with lowered resources if you decide to push on.

I would mostly agree with this, as there is no mechanic at all preventing it. I have trouble identifying why exactly I never had a problem with the fighter caster disparity, as I never conciously did anything to try to avoid it. I did not change my style between 2nd edition and 3rd edition either, not do I think I dm'd really any differently for Alternity, Warhammer or Mutants and Masterminds. My style seems to work for any game except Call of Cthulhu because i guess I jsut don't do horror well.

When I played the SSI or Baldur's Gate and NWN games, I always seemed to have a TON of potions at the end of the game. Simply I never used them because I always thought I will need them more later. This may lead into what you are saying a bit, I am not sure.

I would often only use one shot items when my party was about to get dusted. This did not always happen so I often ended the game with an unsatisfying amount of Trump Card potions.

 

[technoextreme]

I am perfectly OK with people recognizing problems in 3rd edition and leaving for 4e. EVERY RPG has its problems and the players choose which problems are unbearable. I do not think players of 4e play wrong. I have long time friends that like to play 4e, and I know how they play. I do not think they suddenly altered their playing style.

Recently in this thread there are alot of people trying to play the 'gotcha game' as if they were trying to get someone like me, or Byron, or wicht, to just say, "Fighters were unplayable." I have seen no evidence of that. I have heard that people have problems with it. I am willing to concede that people had problems that made the game unenjoyable for them. I will not concede that it made D&D 3rd edition unplayable.

Perhaps we can have SPIKE channel do a completely arbitrary documentary on what the better system is, the same way they arbitrarily match up warriors against each other with no historical or scientific context.

That is because most if not all of your arguments were devoid of any facts to support your argument. Why do you think I kept on harping on you about your logical fallacies especial in a game where as Vyvyan Basterd put it you can fix a lot of the problems by slicing out content that the developers really didn't expect there to be problems to use.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

First the planar deal, now the bmx bandit and angel summoner argument.


Look...


In 3e there was a power disparity between wizards and fighters.

at levels 1-4 fighters were better than wizards.
at levels, say 5-10?, they were about the same.
at levels, say beyond 10?, but certainly at higher levels, wizards and other casters eclipsed fighters.


I think we can all more or less agree that this was true (with some debate about the levels, certainly.)


But there are two things we're not agreeing upon:
1. Did it matter? In some games it did, in others it didn't (I suspect in roleplay heavy games that combat balance didn't matter as much, but in combat heavy games the combat balance mattered more).
2. (a bit of a subset of 1, but still important) What was the degree? I think there are some that think high level fighters were "worthless" while to others, they were merely "less powerful than the casters, but pretty damn powerful".



Ya know, I wonder if this divide has any corrolate with people saying that you can't roleplay in 4e? I certainly don't believe that's true, but on the other hand, perhaps people that were roleplay heavy were more happy with imbalance in 3e? Those that were more combat heavy (I'm not sterotyping here, but I'm sorta drawing a mental venn diagram and classifying different sides of a scale) found that the balance of 4e really improved the game.

If combat is not a major focus of the game, then balanced combat doesn't really matter much.

If outside stuff is a major focus of the game, then having that be explored and interesting does matter quite a bit.


In Worlds and Monsters (or the other one?) they decided the game was about combat (and other stuff, including roleplaying...this is not about what 4e does poorly, it's about what it does well). They made combat better balanced (but perhaps less "nifty", e.g. illusions tricking enemies etc.).


I'd be up for a game (a 5e) that kept balance and kept nifty at the same time.

I mean, the fighter/wizard disarity didn't matter to me, but it does to others. The lack of magical out of combat niftiness to the same degree that it was present in 3e matters a lot to me and little to others.

What if 5e fixes both issues?!

 

[MrGrenadine]

My point is that a group of players could force the 15MAD against the DM's preferences if they are adamant enough. There's nothing in the system encouraging them to not nova and then rest. All of the solutions presented to prevent this are playstyle choices. I agree with those playstyle choices and so do my players, so we never had the 15MAD problem. But the system itself rewards you to unload and then rest and punishes you with lowered resources if you decide to push on.

I respectfully disagree. The system has nothing to do with it. Resting is not guaranteed, and the DM has all the power he or she needs to make sure nova-and-resting is discouraged.

"You hear the stomping of feet and shouts in some sort of goblin-speech coming from the woods around you. There are no enemies nearby, but you can tell from years of experience that this is an unsafe place to rest.

The path you're on leads onward, toward the goblin camp. You know if you were lucky enough to reach it and dispatch the chieftain, the rest of the small horde would disperse. The path also leads back towards the town--a day's journey through the forest. A certainly dangerous trek, as you know. You also find a fallen tree trunk on the the banks of the river that flows sluggishly parallel with the path. You may be able to fashion a crude boat from the wood and continue to the city you can barely see at the base of the distant mountains."

 

[Mournblade94]

I don't think the claim is that fighters are unplayable (though I could be wrong), but that spellcasters could outshine them in their own role. I do think that there have been times in AD&D and 3x that this occurred. The most glaring to me was the cleric spell find traps. Auto-success while the thief had a low chance to find them? And that was one of the thief's main tasks? This was grating at times, but not a large enough issue to cause a problem for us.

As for making 3E unplayable I think you'd have to add an inferred "for me/us." Otherwise there is objective proof that 3E is still playable as large numbers of people still play and enjoy the game.

I actually thought the me/us was inferred.

Also spellcasters did not out do other roles in my games. Everyone always recognized the spells that would make a rogue obsolete, however the mages never took those spells because it was not a sacrifice they were willing to make. Ever it seems. If you could spontaneously cast Utility spells like find traps, that would be a major problem. I ahve yet to meet a cleric player actually cast find traps. I take that back. I had a cleric of mask, but he was a multiclass rogue/cleric.



I recognize the argument is as you illustrate a case of outshining roles but that is what I am talking about. The role overlap.

 

[BryonD]

Your last statement is an example of an understand statement. By using the word "problem" you are acknowledging the issue, and then are stating how it is not a big deal. You could go on to explain to someone who is having the problem how to avoid it.

But saying "It has never happened to me." well, that almost just begs the response "How nice for you." It does not really keep the door open for further discussion.

R K

Right, because I just signed up for ENWorld yesterday and have NEVER gone through all this before.
Explaining that same thing over and over only to have someone new or (frequently and even worse), the very same people come back and claim you never answered the question gets beyond old.

I READILY acknowledge that some people can't avoid the issue. But that does NOTHING to equate it to getting cancer. The "How nice for you" reply acknowledges that the cancer analogy is bankrupt. If I claimed I could smoke for 30 years without getting cancer would you say that begs the response "How nice for you"? Of course you wouldn't.

In the case of gaming it might be an acceptable, though pretty much sour grapes, response. And yet in the example given it is patently absurd.

If the analogy held the slightest bit of water, you would reply the same in both cases.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I respectfully disagree. The system has nothing to do with it. Resting is not guaranteed, and the DM has all the power he or she needs to make sure nova-and-resting is discouraged.

"You hear the stomping of feet and shouts in some sort of goblin-speech coming from the woods around you. There are no enemies nearby, but you can tell from years of experience that this is an unsafe place to rest.

The path you're on leads onward, toward the goblin camp. You know if you were lucky enough to reach it and dispatch the chieftain, the rest of the small horde would disperse. The path also leads back towards the town--a day's journey through the forest. A certainly dangerous trek, as you know. You also find a fallen tree trunk on the the banks of the river that flows sluggishly parallel with the path. You may be able to fashion a crude boat from the wood and continue to the city you can barely see at the base of the distant mountains."

First off, this certainly matches my playstyle and my players buy into this, so I agree with you personally.


But a DM has more controls at low levels to prevent certain issues from cropping up. But what happens when the party gains access to more convient modes of transport? Teleporting back to a well-studied home base after carefully studying the location they wish to return the next day? This happens around 9th level with just a wizard in the group. An 8th-level wizard can hide the party in a rope trick for 24 hours with three castings. You could obviously subject the party to danger each time they rest a home after a teleport or each time they exit the rope trick, but it seems awfully contrived at some point.

 

[BryonD]

Byron and now BotE claim that I'm "doing it wrong" otherwise I would not encounter the problem like they did. That since I am the one with the problem it must be me "playing drunk" and couldn't possibly be the system.

It's Bryon.

You know, you yourself stated that the problem CAN be avoided but that certain criteria are required in order to avoid it. We debated whether it was reasonable for me to state (as I still do) that when I meet those criteria without any effort then those criteria are not unreasonable.

You ALSO said that when you run a game BMX Bandit / Angel Summoner could not be avoided.

PER VB: Problem CAN be completely avoided.
PER VB: VB can't run the game without encountering a radical extreme form of the problem.

With those two items known, does it really matter what I did or didn't say?



(For the record, if you are having fun you are doing it right)

 

[Mournblade94]

That is because most if not all of your arguments were devoid of any facts to support your argument. Why do you think I kept on harping on you about your logical fallacies especial in a game where as Vyvyan Basterd put it you can fix a lot of the problems by slicing out content that the developers really didn't expect there to be problems to use.

Your harping on logical falacies because you do not know what they are, or you have trouble recognizing the plethora of yours.

Here is a FACT for you. The Caster disparity has NEVER been a problem for ME or anyone I played with. That is a fact.

Here is the fallacy: The caster disparity was NEVER a problem for me or my group, so therefore it could not have been a problem with YOURS.

I have never made that claim.

Houseruling is a sign of good GM's. Yet I did not cut out anything the designers expected to not be a problem in order to avoid the disparity, so I have no idea how you are relating anything to Vyvyan's post. His argument is different from yours, and I am responding to his accordingly.



You see the comical part is, you have backed absolutely NOTHING up with facts and will still accuse other of doing the same.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

You ALSO said that when you run a game BMX Bandit / Angel Summoner could not be avoided.

Please re-read what I typed. I think you've missed one key word. "When I run a game of 3E the problem could not be avoided satisfactorily."

IOW, others' solutions to the problem, or the ways that led others to never encounter the problem, do not provide a solution that appeals to us.

 

[gamerprinter]

While I too have never had a problem regarding caster/martial disparity in my D&D games over the past 30+ years, it's not because we house ruled a fix to the game. As far as I can tell, I am playing as the rules intended and have not removed fluff or crunch to achieve the non-disparity. In fact we have almost no house rules at all, going pretty much verbatim by the rules - as we read it (of course).

Not to suggest others wouldn't have the disparity problem, as we don't, but not everybody reads the rules the same (apparently.)

Point being, I have made no change to the rules or the fluff, to achieve the kind of balanced game that Wicht describes in his - my experience is pretty much identical.

 

[Mournblade94]

I respectfully disagree. The system has nothing to do with it. Resting is not guaranteed, and the DM has all the power he or she needs to make sure nova-and-resting is discouraged.

"You hear the stomping of feet and shouts in some sort of goblin-speech coming from the woods around you. There are no enemies nearby, but you can tell from years of experience that this is an unsafe place to rest.

The path you're on leads onward, toward the goblin camp. You know if you were lucky enough to reach it and dispatch the chieftain, the rest of the small horde would disperse. The path also leads back towards the town--a day's journey through the forest. A certainly dangerous trek, as you know. You also find a fallen tree trunk on the the banks of the river that flows sluggishly parallel with the path. You may be able to fashion a crude boat from the wood and continue to the city you can barely see at the base of the distant mountains."

That I beleive is his point however in some sense. There is no RULE that parties have to rest or WHEN they have to rest. If someone wants the 15 minute adventuring day, there is no rule AGAINST it. Similarly as a DM you can force your players to move on because there is no rule for rest, other than the normal exertion.

So if I have a group insisting on a NOVA every encounter, then teleporting away to rest, there is really nothing in the rules against that.

In the Skeletons of Scarwall, in game time to clear the first level I think I recall was 1 hour and 45 minutes of INGAME time (two sessions I think). This included combat, searching, etc. Maybe it was 2 hours and 45 minutes I can't remember at the moment. In any case, had I allowed rest after every encounter, it would have taken about 3 days.

There is nothing in the rules that makes that have any difference. It did make a difference in game because Scarwall would have made new spirit anchors. THey would have had to go through dungeon level 1 all over again.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think you understood what analogy I was making. I was not analogizing playing D&D to smoking cigarettes. I was analogizing the statement "I didn't have a problem with linear fighters-quadratic wizards, so I saw no need for the change" to "I didn't get cancer from smoking, so I saw no need for anti-smoking regulations". Both statements seek to diminish the people arguing for change by implying their concerns are beneath notice, or are not genuine without addressing the substance of the change. They simply handwave even the idea that change was needed.

I do understand that. And it is still wrong.

No one is saying anything comparable to "I didn't get cancer from smoking, so I saw no need for anti-smoking regulations"

There is ZERO equivalence.

If you didn't get cancer it was PURE LUCK.
You are equating an unavoidable consequence whose results were a matter of luck to a fully avoidable consequence whose results are a matter of behavior.

 

[BryonD]

Please re-read what I typed. I think you've missed one key word. "When I run a game of 3E the problem could not be avoided satisfactorily."

Did you or did you not say that BMX Bandit / Angel Summoner was a "not BS" example of what consistently happened to you?

What shades of "acceptable" apply to that?

 

[gamerprinter]

True, but to declare there is a built in disparity problem (as some do claim), because there is no rule to prevent one from going Nova then resting does not mean that that is the implied way to play - thus disparity is built in. If you run your games to allow for nova to happen, it's a problem at the DM level, not the system.

For some this might not be a problem, thus I'm not saying it is a problem or a bad/wrong/fun aspect to how one run's their game. However, if disparity is a problem for you, perhaps you need to change your game by pacing out your encounters, and never having a defined number of encounters for any kind of pace of casting to occur.

It's almost as one is trying to say, I'm a soldier in a war, but the enemy needs to stop shooting at me while I rest, because I am out of bullets. What your state of resources are or are not should not be the mechanism that determines whether you are in or out of a fight.

 

[Mournblade94]

True, but to declare there is a built in disparity problem (as some do claim), because there is no rule to prevent one from Nova then rest does not mean that that is the implied way to play, thus disparity is built in. If you run your games to allow for nova to happen, its a problem at the DM level, not the system.

For some this might not be a problem, thus I'm not saying it is a problem or a bad/wrong/fun aspect to how one run's there game. However if disparity is a problem for you, perhaps you need to change your game by pacing out your encounters, and never having a defined number of encounters for any kind of pace of casting to occur.

Its almost as if one is trying to say, I'm a soldier in a war, but the enemy needs to stop shooting at me while I rest, because I am out of bullets. What your state of resources are or are not should not be the mechanism that determines whether you are in or out of the fight.

I fully agree!