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

[Imaro]

Of course, I guess any group could ignore the PHB stuff, and make Nentir Vale and Fallcrest the focus of play. In which case they'd be exploring a boring setting using a ruleset that isn't well suited to it. Why not play RQ in Glorantha instead, or AD&D or 3E in Greyhawk?

Isn't this exactly what the DMG tells you to do? To use The Nentir Vale as well as Fallcrest (which is fully fleshed out) and Kobold Manor (ready for classic exploration) as the focus of play... at least to start. If it was just suppose to be "backdrop" why not make it something like the town/village of Everwatch from Dragon Magazine? Where very little is concretely designed, and it is specifically called out as serving the purpose of tieing the PC's into the campaign you decide to run. Again you pick and choose what you feel is relevant or not relevant when discussing 4e instead of looking at it as a whole.

 

[Hussar]

Such as, I dunno ...

"It is impregnated with strong anti-magics which prevent its detection or removal or change to another form or substance."

"It cannot be magically detected, nor will it open by physical or magical means . . ."

"Detect invisibility or any other sort of searching except by careful feeling will be useless."

"No form of magic will detect it, save the gem of seeing."

"Anybody poking around the Tomb in Astral or Ethereal form has a 1 in 6 chance of attracting a Type I - IV demon."

You know, modern module design.

LOL. You could also see Queen of the Demonweb Pits, and Isle of the Ape for more examples. Oh, and Beyond the Magic Mirror as well.

 

[Umbran]

Saying they "nerfed wizards completely" is ridiculous to anyone who has actually ever played the system who isn't a sociopath.

Folks,

Arguments of the form, "If you don't agree with me, you must be mentally unbalanced," are rhetorically weak, rude, and arrogant. While some folks may like this form of discourse, it is not appropriate for EN World.

Herschel will no longer be part of this discussion.

 

[Jack99]

Yeah, I remember when my Druid started getting powerful(7ish) and the Dm and I started the arms race. He'd throw out a CR11 enemy with Spell Immunity, I'd use Summon Nature's Ally. He'd do it again, I dropped it down a pit with stone shape. It wasn't long before I realized I kinda didn't want the rest of the character's career to be an arms race, so I just stopped being clever or creative at all, which was worse. It was one of those things that was never an issue before I saw it, but once I saw it, it never went away.

I have been considering lately, if it was more a DM than a player issue. Since around '90, I have been almost exclusively the DM. While there was little doubt in our groups that wizards were grossly overpowered in PvP if prepared properly (we ran DungeonHacks, 6 vs 6 in magical arenas as a bi-annual thing for years, and it was always the wizard(s) who won the battles), it was never a big issue in my campaigns, even though I mostly allowed just about anything.

With 3.x, I had to ban a couple of prestige classes and feats (if memory serves me), and it was still not a big deal. However, once, one of my players (our original DM) wanted to run a 3.x campaign on his own (we had previously run one together, with 2 DM's) and I made a druid.

Around level 14 we called it quits, my character, while not CO-optimized, was still so far ahead of anyone else in the party, that it seemed that they mattered little. One night, the cleric and my druid took on what the DM had prepared for the whole party (of 5) and managed not only to deal with things, but essentially we breezed through. Sure, it required some good planning and such, but the druid was just so flexible and had so many tools at his disposal that it was ridiculous.

Most of all, they all remember Bobo, the flying bear who grappled dragons to death.

In short. I think it would never have been such an issue in my campaign, but the DM proved incapable of setting things up so that my druid couldn't handle things on his own. So if others out there have had DM's like him, I can completely understand why they would think that it was horribly broken. Please do note that I am NOT saying that everyone who thinks things were broken had a lousy DM.

Cheers

 

[Quickleaf]

I'll take seriously the suggestion that 3.5 and Planescape are as well suited to narrativist play as is 4e when I start to see the actual accounts of narrativist play using that system and that setting.

Pick me! Pick me!

I can't speak for 3rd edition, but I'm pretty sure our old Planescape campaign fit the narrativist play model. Barring drastic differences in definition. Heh.

Maybe we should fork from this very chaotic thread?

 

[technoextreme]

Ok, fair enough:



In other words, the problem isn't with the system, it's with how the system is used.



Again, no problem with the system, it's a playstyle problem.



Again, the problem doesn't exist in the system, it's a playstyle issue.

There's three so far. Would you like me to find more?

So, if the problem isn't systemic, why isn't Paizo being criticised for fixing a non-existent problem, the same way that WOTC gets criticised?

People criticize Wizards all the time for the same type of the "play style issues" in 4E. Admittedly, they aren't as drastic but still there are stupid design decisions that they have made that you can fix but aren't in the rules.

Fine I am in Denial that whenever I played a fighter I had absolutely no fun. You have found me out. I am such an idiot!

Thankfully your sharp intellect has let me see the error of my ways and I am going to switch to a more balanced game because any game without balance cannot possibly be fun.

Actually you are invoking logical fallacies which is why people are harping on you for actually saying this. As I said before I've never had a problem with the system therefore no problem exists has never actually been a valid argument no matter what you are talking about. Its pretty much flat out denial.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

However, once, one of my players (our original DM) wanted to run a 3.x campaign on his own (we had previously run one together, with 2 DM's) and I made a druid.

Around level 14 we called it quits, my character, while not CO-optimized, was still so far ahead of anyone else in the party, that it seemed that they mattered little. One night, the cleric and my druid took on what the DM had prepared for the whole party (of 5) and managed not only to deal with things, but essentially we breezed through. Sure, it required some good planning and such, but the druid was just so flexible and had so many tools at his disposal that it was ridiculous.

Your lucky, My first Druid lasted 1 9th level encounter... My 3.5 cleric had taken leadership and had a druid follower (it had to do with us bring ing the old and new religions togather very story based). The druid was a half elf (non optimized int he edtion) and had a basic wolf compainon that was ment for fluff...

These abberation thing that the party had to date faught one of at a time showed up as 2... we spent the first rounf buffing (both cleric and druid) and then we charges with the party... I charged one and the wolf charged the other, then a fellow PC rememded me to buff the wolf through shared spell...and things went bad.

opening round I droped one and the wolf did silly damage almost droping the second (the second was un hurt at this point) and the fighter/rouge asked me for the wolf buffed stats... MY cohort's compainon had a +2 better to hit and did more dmaage then his character...

The DM hemed and hawed...I just eraced leadership and took a diffrent feat, saying the druid would be better as a story point.

 

[billd91]

These abberation thing that the party had to date faught one of at a time showed up as 2... we spent the first rounf buffing (both cleric and druid) and then we charges with the party... I charged one and the wolf charged the other, then a fellow PC rememded me to buff the wolf through shared spell...and things went bad.

opening round I droped one and the wolf did silly damage almost droping the second (the second was un hurt at this point) and the fighter/rouge asked me for the wolf buffed stats... MY cohort's compainon had a +2 better to hit and did more dmaage then his character...

The DM hemed and hawed...I just eraced leadership and took a diffrent feat, saying the druid would be better as a story point.

Seems like a pretty extreme reaction to just one incident. How would the fighter/rogue have looked with a similar buff on him? Did you realize that sharing the buff spell with the wolf requires the wolf to remain within 5 feet or it loses the buff?

The leadership feat is, undoubtedly, a potent one, particularly if the PC is geared to have a high leadership score. And in this case, you picked a cohort that includes an additional figure to boot. That draws a lot of table time your way when it comes to combat. That's something the DM has to be aware of, but it's also something that you, as a player, can ameliorate substantially via play behavior. In this case, you reconned the feat off the character. But keeping the lower level druid in a support position, casting buffs and heals rather than charging in, could cut your focus time down to a more equal level as well.

 

[billd91]

If you saw no problem with fighters, there was nothing for pathfinder to fix.

However if you did, Pathfinder fixed nothing. That was one of the big things I looked at in the Pathfinder rules, but it was not there. Fighters got more tricks, they might be better, but the base problems I saw in every group I ran in 3.5 was not fixed.

Again - too binary. There are issues, there are differences, there are problems, and there are real breaks. Just because someone didn't see a problem with fighters didn't mean they didn't see room for improvement, relatively speaking.

 

[Plane Sailing]

As I said before I've never had a problem with the system therefore no problem exists has never actually been a valid argument no matter what you are talking about.

I disagree.

If someone else says "the system was always a problem" then "I've never had a problem" is a valid counter - because if the alternate view states an absolute then counter-examples can disprove that absolute (or at least make rational debaters consider that there are alternatives to their position).

I don't know which side of the fence you sit on the issue, but from the way you phrase this it sounds like you are on the "there was a problem" side? Whether that is the case or not, I would have thought that by now it is clear that the rational position is that "some people found it a problem, others didn't find it a problem". I think most people would probably agree with that.

Then there is the subsequent discussion which typically doesn't go so well on the basis of whether or not the 4e 'solution' was a good one or a bad one (or even a necessary one). Typically this discussion says more about a person than the actual point in question though.

Regards,