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

[JamesonCourage]

Ahh, I see. You're cherry picking a single line out of the quote.

I was trying to highlight your actual claim. Let's look at your whole quote, if you'd like (I'm going to highlight the claims made):

But, again, good fix/bad fix is not what's being argued.

Throughout this thread you and others have been stating that there is no problem with the mechanics. That every edition, other than 4e, the fighter has no balance issues with the caster.

But, if that's true, shouldn't you be annoyed that Pathfinder fixed the power disparity? Whether someone likes the fix or not isn't the issue. You're claiming that the problem doesn't exist at all

Shouldn't the same criticism of 4e - that they are making fixes to problems that don't exist - apply equally to Pathfinder? I mean, if the problem didn't exist then no changes need to be made right?

For the past few years, people have been telling us that WOTC was fixing something that didn't need fixing. In this thread you can see the same claims being made. Yet, when Paizo fixes exactly the same issue, albeit in a different way, then the criticism changes from, "There is no problem that needs fixing" to "Well, Paizo fixed the problem in the right way".

So, which is it? Is there a problem in the 3.5e mechanics or not?

You've made the following claims:

• Throughout this thread you and others have been stating that there is no problem with the mechanics.

I asked for you to show me where this happened. You claimed that Imaro and "others" (so I'm assuming two or more other posters) have made this claim in this very thread. I asked for you to show me where that was stated.

• That every edition, other than 4e, the fighter has no balance issues with the caster.

I didn't ask for this, but I don't remember Imaro and two or more other posters making this claim, either.

• You're claiming that the problem doesn't exist at all

Again, I don't remember this claim being made by Imaro and two or more other posters at the time of your post (18th August 2011, 06:01 PM).

• For the past few years, people have been telling us that WOTC was fixing something that didn't need fixing. In this thread you can see the same claims being made.

This has definitely been claimed in this thread several times. I can find those, and I don't dispute this claim. Can you please show me where Imaro and "others" have claimed "that there is no problem with the mechanics" prior to your post that I originally replied to?

Never mind the rest of the quote which places everything in context - that the issue is only a playstyle issue (something that becomes even more clear given the context of the quotes I provided) and not a systemic one.

As I've given your original post in full context, I don't see playstyle being mentioned, much less highlighted.

Sure, if I actually said what you claim I'm saying, you'd be right.

Thanks

However, given the context in which I said it, the quotes I provided to show proof of what I stated, and the fact that you have to truncate my post to a single line and ignore everything else I've posted to make your point kinda points to being taken out of context.

I've highlighted a claim you've made, and asked you to back up where people have made that claim in this thread (Imaro and any two other posters) prior to your post on 18th August 2011, 06:01 PM. I haven't tried to take your post out of context. The claim made did not mention playstyle in the least, and it seems like you're saying "see? Some people say that a different playstyle means there is no problem" somehow proves your point. To me, saying that proves that they acknowledge that some people have a problem, but they're just stating that they do not. It does not prove that they've claimed "that there is no problem with the mechanics." It just proves that they've claimed that they have not experienced a problem with the mechanics.

For example, my immedietely previous post Post 410 which possibly misattributes arguments to Imaro (sorry about that, got the names confused) talks about exactly what I'm saying:

Maybe I'm missing something, but the post you linked to isn't your "previous post". It's the first post of yours I responded to.

Which, for those keeping score would be best said as such:

For some people the issue is not systemic, but playstyle. For some people, the issue doesn't exist at all, leading them to presume that anyone who has these issues could fix said issues simply by changing their playstyle. I further point out that if the problem wasn't systemic, then why did Paizo ALSO address the issue?

While I have my own thoughts on this, I'd still like to see those links to those posts that you claimed Imaro and others have made in this thread. I've yet to comment on this, but your post that I originally replied to specifically said that Imaro and other posters have claimed "that there is no problem with the mechanics." I'd like to see where they've said as much. I really don't feel like pointing out your quote (and now in it's entirety) is taking it out of context. Your post shows no indication that playstyle is a factor.

In your post immediately before the post of yours I quoted, you mentioned playstyle to Mournblade94. Here's that quote in its entirety (I'm going to highlight the area where you mention playstyle):

That's a separate issue though. Throughout this thread and others, people have vehemently denied that the issue EXISTS at all, other than for some people. Imaro, for one, has repeatedly said that the issue never occured at his table or with his groups.

Yet, if it's purely a playstyle issue, why did Pathfinder fix it? If this is something that only happens if you play a certain way, why change the rules and not just say, "Don't play that way?"

If you change the rules to address an issue, then that issue was a recognized problem.

Whether you like one fix better than another fix is irrelavent to whether or not the problem exists in the first place.

Keep in mind, that even in this quote, you claimed the following:

That's a separate issue though. Throughout this thread and others, people have vehemently denied that the issue EXISTS at all, other than for some people. Imaro, for one, has repeatedly said that the issue never occured at his table or with his groups.

You've made the claim here that people have "vehemently denied that the issue EXISTS at all, other than for some people" which, if that means that "according to some people, this issue exists for some people and not for others," I find that very reasonable. Especially since the poster you replied to, Mournblade94, said the following in the post your replied to:

I think the issue is, that the disparity between fighters and wizards was not a big deal for many groups. I thought Fighter could use a bump, but not at the expense of the wizard. PAizo accomplished that.

Mournblade is specifically claiming that "many groups" did not experience any sort of disparity as a big deal. He's not claiming that there was no issue for anyone, and neither is Imaro. So, when you go on to say:

Throughout this thread you and others have been stating that there is no problem with the mechanics.

... then it is in an entirely different context than what you said to Mournblade94. When you were talking to Mournblade94, you claimed that "people have vehemently denied that the issue EXISTS at all, other than for some people" which is essentially true. However, your argument shifted to saying that others have said "that there is no problem with the mechanics" which I could not find proof of. I might have missed it (it's a long thread), but the context is plain.

Now, I can trace this back even further. I replied to you, after you replied to Imaro. Previous to that post, you had replied to Mournblade94, who had replied to you. Your post had been in reply to TheAuldGrump, and you said the following:

Claiming that there was no problem, when the system you play addresses the problem directly seems a bit odd.

This, I find odd, considering he had said this in the post your replied to:

The reason in this case is because a lot of folks didn't find 3.X wizards over powering, while some 4e players cannot wrap their minds around the fact that it is either subjective or circumstantial.

It comes down to style of play.

If the GM allows the so called '15 minute adventuring day' then it can be that the wizard is over powered.

If the wizard stretches his spells out over a longer time then the problem goes away.

In the very quote you replied to, the poster wasn't claiming no problems occurred. He goes on to say he's witnessed the "fifteen minute adventuring day" personally, once. Direct acknowledgement of the problem some people have with the game. And yet, you still reply to it and tell him:

Claiming that there was no problem, when the system you play addresses the problem directly seems a bit odd.

That doesn't follow. I don't know where you're drawing this from, nor do I know where you're drawing "Throughout this thread you and others have been stating that there is no problem with the mechanics" from. You've mentioned playstyle in only one of the posts I've quoted, and it was sandwiched between these two quotes.

If your whole point all along has been "people have claimed that some people haven't run across the problem because of their playstyle" then I agree. I don't feel you presented it that way, but so be it. If that's what you're saying, I'll take your word for it. Or, if you just want me to drop it, I will. I'm only commenting on it still because of the replies. I probably should drop it anyways (this discussion isn't productive to either side). On that note, you can respond freely if you'd like. I'll let you have the last word on this, and instead try to contribute to this thread if I feel motivated to post in it again (most of it is much more interesting than my posts are, as they're much more productive).

As always, play what you like

 

[Lanefan]

However, I look at it like this: In 3e I MUST use a non-static world. I have no choice. If I use a static world, then I run into the caster issues. Thus, the mechanics are dictating my playstyle.

Only if you see the "caster issues" as a problem; which as far as I can tell is largely a measure of what sort of level you're playing at.

In 4e, I don't have to use a static world. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If the players want to spend three months looting the dungeon, go right ahead. Maybe there will be consequences, maybe not. It's 100% up to the DM. In other words, the mechanics are not dictating my playstyle.

4e certainly lends itself to a different playstyle, in that a party can plow through an adventure like Keep on the Shadowfell in one go - maybe two if they're unlucky and have to rest overnight once - and be done with it. Resources (including health) are easy to recover and-or maintain in the field.

In 1e that same adventure might take weeks. (it took my group 4 months but there were other things slowing them down)

What this means is the idea of a time constraint is tougher to use. If hurrying up means taking two days instead of three that's not a big deal as often the extra day doesn't mean much; but if it means the difference between taking 6 days instead of a month that's a big enough difference that the world *can* advance or change during it.

So while the mechanics might not be dictating a playstyle they're certainly speeding up the pace, which changes how the party's actions will interact with the game world. An experienced DM will catch this. A rookie probably won't.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I do think the fault is on the game, here. Let me explain. The 15mwd isn't created by playstyle. It's created by characters having many per-day abilities, and being capable of using them all in a short period of time. Sans that capability, 15mwd won't happen, whether or not the characters need to press on, or if they can take their time. Now, it's an issue that can be avoided by use of certain playstyles, and if you already played by those styles, it's easy to see how the problem would never crop up for you. It could also be a non-issue, balance-wise, if either all or no classes could do it. If the Fighter or Monk could nova just as hard in a single encounter per day, the balance issue lessens a lot.

I think this is right - it's a possibility inherent in the system, that emerges under some play conditions and not others.

I remember in a RM game I GMed the scenario involved exploration of a magically warded and trapped castle. The PCs - all wizards or warrior-mages - lived in a city some 1000-odd miles to the south-east. They would wake up with power points refreshed, teleport to the outskirts of the castle, make their way in under fly spells, investigate until they ran low on power points - which tended not to take all that long - and then teleport home. Sometimes, if they were able to rest quickly and regain PPs, they could get in two missions a day.

Now in my view there is nothing inherently wrong, in a fantasy RPG, of a scenario involving exploration of an old castle. In this particular game, there was a degree of time pressure - they had days and weeks, rather than months, in which to undertake this exploration. But there was no pressure that would make it logical for them to press on even without power points. And there was no more logical way to investigate the castle than by using magic - it was a magic-rich environment and they were magic-rich PCs.

But the net outcome is a little bit inane - rest, commute to work via teleport, work for half-an-hour, commute back home, rest, repeat.

One obvious way to change the situation would be to give these PCs ways of undertaking the investigation that recharge more quickly than RM power points do. That is, a system change could produce a change in play. (Of course, that system change might produce other consequences too, that aren't desired.)

A more extreme version of the "nova" problem was in a later RM campaign, where on PC had the ability to spend practically all his PP in a single round, on a series of buffed attack spells. That's getting close, in my view, to self-evidently poor mechanical design.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, one more time, this time with feeling!

Several posters, and I've quoted three or four, have claimed that the issue here isn't systemic, but is rather one of playstyle, that if you play in a time based world where taking to long to do something has (presumably negative) consequences, then the 15 Minute Adventuring Day becomes a moot point. It doesn't come up because the players never have the option of taking that long to complete a tasking.

Several people in this thread have stated this.

Now, I agree, that if you want to get around the 15MAD, you can throw in time based adventures. But, then:

4e certainly lends itself to a different playstyle, in that a party can plow through an adventure like Keep on the Shadowfell in one go - maybe two if they're unlucky and have to rest overnight once - and be done with it. Resources (including health) are easy to recover and-or maintain in the field.

In 1e that same adventure might take weeks. (it took my group 4 months but there were other things slowing them down)

would become very difficult, because we're right back to the 15MAD. If I can take 4 MONTHS to complete a fairly short dungeon crawl, in 3e I'm basically able to blow my wad every encounter, rest until full and then do it again in the next encounter.

The 15MAD isn't such an issue in 1e and 2e because casters get hosed so badly. Particularly when we're talking about a 1st level adventure where the casters have so few spells and so few spell options. Never minding that the 15MAD is generally always considered an issue at higher levels anyway.

But, IF I WANT to let the party take their time with a tasking or if I'm running a campaign where the players set the pace, such as the West Marches campaign, then the 15MAD is going to rear its ugly head because I'm not following in a single playstyle.

Isn't one of the criticisms of 4e that it doesn't support playstyles? But, when it's pointed out that perhaps 3e had some issues in this arena, suddenly, oh no, it's totally not a problem. It's all good. After all, if you were a really good DM, why would you want to play another playstyle? Snort.

 

[MerricB]

4e certainly lends itself to a different playstyle, in that a party can plow through an adventure like Keep on the Shadowfell in one go - maybe two if they're unlucky and have to rest overnight once - and be done with it. Resources (including health) are easy to recover and-or maintain in the field.

I'm very curious as to this assertion: my experience in 4e play is that the major resource to track is healing surges, with daily powers being a minor concern... and that healing surges are supremely limited. Although one could imagine a group who never got hit making it through KotS in a day or two, that could also be said about a group of AD&D characters, although the spellcasters probably wouldn't be doing much spellcasting.

Yes, you get fully healed by resting overnight, but that doesn't obviate the need to rest once you're hurt.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

To me, that was a form of "Balance" -- Fighters are probably better at lower levels, and don't run out of gas (other than hit points), while MU's are superweak at lower levels, probably better at high levels, but always more likely to be killed and having to manage resources more carefully. Which was equally true in AD&D and 3x

This was not equally true between AD&D and 3x. At least the managing of resources. Spellcasters in 3E have many more spells/day than their AD&D counterparts. They also have ways to boost the DCs for the saves against their spells where AD&D casters have a static save chart, thus making the 3E spells potentially more effective and requiring less resources to do more. 3E casters have more access to scrolls/wands either the magic item economy encouraged by the books or via core feats that allowed creation merely by spending gold. AD&D casters had vague rules for creating such items with suggestions that the DM send them on a quest to find the rare components necessary.

But the main form of balance in any edition of D&D is "sometimes you get to be the center of attention, other times your friends are".

To you. To me as well, but I'd never claim it's the "main form" for everyone.

I don't keep count of who was having more glory, and I suspect complaints that it's the other guy are just petulence at not always being the star, like a star hitter who doesn't like it when the pitcher's accomplishments are lauded. D&D is a team sport, and there's no "I" in party!

Except no one here is stating that this is the reason balance was important to them. In my own case it was, as DM, I could not find a satisfactory way to challenge each party member and achieve "sometimes you get to be the center of attention, other times your friends are." Either the weaker characters were over-challenged and could not shine or the stronger characters were under-challenged and made quick work of things so the weaker characters could not shine. I personally did not have the caster problem nor the 15MAD issue in my games, but others did crop up in power gap.

To me, 4e "balance" was a chimera problem they were trying to solve, and they succeeded at what they were trying to do, but only by leeching the flavor out of all the non-MU classes, leaving a bland sameness for all classes.

To me, they accomplished a great meld bewteen my favorite two RPGs of all time, D&D and Earthdawn.

To me, it says, "We have the only balance that is actually important: balance in play, not raw mechanical balance."

To me, it sounds like you are saying "If you don't think balance in play is the only balance of actual importance then you are having badwrongfun."

Exactly, Wicht. The world turns whether the party decides to go adventuring or to sleep all day.

And regarding conflict--whats also missing from your examples, Pentius, is any sense of stakes. High enough stakes will keep the party fighting far beyond the 15 minute adventuring day, using whatever resources they have at their disposal. Simply put, if there's no stakes, there's no drama.

Like I said I didn't have the 15MAD problem in 3E, nor the caster problem. But I can see where others are coming from. You admit that the stakes must be high enough. But how far do you push this? You can't force the players to believe that the stakes are high enough as that would be railroading. So they could decide, as a group even, that none of your stakes are important to them, that their desire to nova/rest/repeat is greater than any stakes you place on them. The system allows them to do this. What is the ultimate end to this game of chicken? The damsel dies? So what, we nova/rest/repeat. A powerful godling is released? So what, he seems nice enough, we nova/rest/repeat. You took too long to respond, now the world is destroyed, the end. There is nothing stopping a group of players from doing the 15MAD if that is what they are determined to do. And when you blow up the world as DM, I'm pretty sure all involved will be left dissatisfied. This is of course an extreme angle, I understand, but it can outline what happens when friends get together and have different playstyle expectations.

However, assuming you mean its an example which relies on a nonexistent scenario, I can only shake my head sadly for you. The "kidnapped maiden" is a classic trope and the "kidnapped maiden about to be sacrificed" is a popular sub-trope. I'm surprised its never come up for you. I don't use it all the time (so many stories, so little time) but I have used it.

I've certainly used it. But what happens when you say "the maiden has been kidnapped" and the players say "so what?"

Let's use a popular adventure (low level - but you should start early), "Burnt Offerings" to show some good ways to create this tension.

1 - Goblins attack the town, setting fire to the buildings. Characters who go for a lie down are going to end up sleeping in a burning building.

Unless they leave town because, you know, goblins are burning down the town.

2 - Kidnapped maiden. Characters who don't pursue fast enough may lose her to a group of goblins. Characters who wait too long may end up losing her to an evil sacrifice.

What if they don't care if she's sacrificed?

3 - Imminent Goblin invasion. Here is a good example of a scenario where the PCs will likely create their own tension as they imagine a goblin army being massed somewhere. Of course, if the PCs do not act fast enough, it would be quite easy to go back to #1 and repeat the cycle till they get the point.

Unless, of course, they don't care if the town gets invaded or burned to the ground. In my campaigns they would care on all three points and I flat out tell my players that I run heroic campaigns where they are expected to approach things this way or we don't have a game I wish to run. But you cannot assume that every game has these priorities, just like you can't assume every game has the problems others have encountered. This is all very good advice for groups whose games run much like your own.

 

[ahayford]

The point, generally speaking, is to try and explain why there is dissatisfaction among a segment of the gamer population with the 4e "fix" to fighters. As it was not a problem to us, we saw no need for the changes. Those who had the problem were happier to change the underlying assumptions about how the classes worked, mechanically.

When I make the points I make, it is to try and explain why, perhaps, the fighter wizard balance is not, and will not, be a problem in my games. I actually perceive the wizard to have quite a few weaknesses which, when understood and utilized by the GM, provide the necessary balance. I truly think the problem is not with the system design (which works just fine for me) but to be with the way people use the system. That is not to say their playstyle is wrong, I would guess they are genuinely happier with 4e. But I think that before declaring the older system to be "broken" it perhaps behooves people to look at how their style interacts with the rules and how other styles might interact better before declaring the problem to be with the engine.

Could you expand this and explain some of the ways a DM might balance/control overpowered casters?

And more specificly, what weaknesses you see in casters.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok I just posted a thrad about play style over the edtions if people want to stop derailning this thread

I'm very curious as to this assertion: my experience in 4e play is that the major resource to track is healing surges, with daily powers being a minor concern... and that healing surges are supremely limited. Although one could imagine a group who never got hit making it through KotS in a day or two, that could also be said about a group of AD&D characters, although the spellcasters probably wouldn't be doing much spellcasting.

Yes, you get fully healed by resting overnight, but that doesn't obviate the need to rest once you're hurt.

I will just say that it took quite a few days to get throug KoS and I had to hand wave time becuse of it...I made the mistake of telling the PCs they had 2 days, then they ran out of surges and needed another ex rest before the big fight...

 

[wrecan]

The point, generally speaking, is to try and explain why there is dissatisfaction among a segment of the gamer population with the 4e "fix" to fighters. As it was not a problem to us, we saw no need for the changes.

Well, maybe's it's an inherent inclarity in the English language, but "saw no need" would mean you don't even acknowledge that others did have complaints. Again, that's why such statements sound like they deny the problem exists or is genuine for anyone.

I never had a problem with THAC0, but I would never have said "I had no problem with THAC0, so I saw no need for the changes." I can "see the need" for changes because I know that other people didn't like THAC0 as an unnecessarily complicated way to calculate attacks, even if I didn't particularly care.

And even if I cared so much about THAC0 that I hated that 3e introduced BAB in its place, I still wouldn't have said "I didn't have a problem with THAC0 so I didn't see the need", because that would be telling other people who saw the need that their complaints were less than genuine.

It just seems that "I didn't have a problem with X so I don't see the need to change X" is not a helpful statement for any value of X. It is almost always going to make the person saying it appear condescending to those who do perceive an issue with X, and does nothing to explain why the speaker is dissatisfied with the changes.

 

[wrecan]

you are comparing smoking and cancer to gaming

No. I am comparing arguments made in antismoking debates to arguments made in edition wars. I am not analogizing smoking itself to gaming i any fashion.

you are saying that not having the problem is simply a matter of LUCK?

No. I made no statement as to why one person may or may not have a specific problem witht he game. I am making an analogy about arguments made, not the game itself.

There is zero equivalence. Your analogy is completely defective.

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.