Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[LostSoul]

I see two different readings for the second statement, and I'm not sure which one you meant. You're certainly not obliged to change the system. Many people have played it as is, and for many no problematic power gap has come up. Even if you do have a large power gap, Dannyalcatraz has talked about running a vagabond and a glitter boy in the same party successfully in RIFTS, which is a larger power gap then you can get reasonably in D&D 3.5. And even if the power gap occurs, you can avoid it by restricting which classes, feats, books, etc. are used, or by purely social mechanisms, by producing characters with an eye to avoiding the power gap.

I only meant that you might have to change the system if you want to avoid the power gap, not that you had to change the system in order to enjoy 3E.

I don't think the power gap is always a problem. The worst thing that can happen is that it robs PCs who don't have high caster levels from making meaningful choices; that can be dealt with by a well-crafted setting where there are multiple avenues of action. I don't think it's too hard to build that kind of setting - the default one suggested by the DMG's demographics should suffice.

For example, I don't know what I'd do in my current 3.5 game to deal with the threat we're facing if my PC was a pure fighter. Since we've got a rich setting to work with, though, I could probably come up with something. It'd probably be more difficult, sure, but that's not a problem.

 

[Hussar]

In a general sense we are talking about power gaps... And I was in turn commenting that contrary to popular sentiment (at least here though it's certainly different on toher boards), 4e definitely has them. I then went on to use the Warlock as an example... as a sub-par striker and a mediocre (I don't think anyone would say he is top tier as a controller??) when compared to other classes in the same roles. I then went on to contrast the Warlock with the Fighter who is top tier in two roles (Striker and Defender) to further illustrate some of the power gaps in 4e... Does that clear everything up.

I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth, so please clarify do you consider the Warlock a top tier striker? A top tier controller? If not what exactly is he exceptional at? Do you think that the Warlock and Fighter are on the same level power wise?

So, the only way a warlock becomes "not mediocre" is if he does as much damage as the ranger AND gets controllery powers?

It's an interesting definition of "not mediocre" but, personally, not one I subscribe to.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

For me, I will acknowledge that there can be reasonably built 3.5 characters that diverge problematically in power.

Even if you do have a large power gap, Dannyalcatraz has talked about running a vagabond and a glitter boy in the same party successfully in RIFTS, which is a larger power gap then you can get reasonably in D&D 3.5.

Was that in this thread? I'd be interested to see how he accomplished that in Rifts. I found Rifts to be unplayable. I wanted to play a anthropomorph a la TMNT, while another player played a Dragon. The GM tried to handle this problem by sending tanks after the Dragon (which my character could not scratch) and foot soldiers after the rest of us. Seemed like an OK solution. Except the player of the Dragon turned her attention on the foot soldiers in the second round, wiping them all out in one gout of flame. The rest of us tried to attack tanks at that point, but couldn't even pry the hatches open to get at the soldiers inside. One solution would be to tell the player of the Dragon that she should focus on the tanks, but this would be a major railroad, IMO, and would have totally ruined the game for me whether I was playing my TMNT or the Dragon because of the artificiality of the division.

And even if the power gap occurs, you can avoid it by restricting which classes, feats, books, etc. are used,

Agreed. But not a good solution if your group likes supplements. I want a game that I can add official supplements to that doen't cause the problmes I encountered. The newest edition of D&D has met that goal for me.

or by purely social mechanisms, by producing characters with an eye to avoiding the power gap.

Agreed. But not a good solution if the players who are capable of creating powerful characters enjoy doing so and would not enjoy the game if asked to reign themselves in. And not if those who are not as capable of creating powerful characters would not enjoy the game if their characters were built partially or in full by the other players. I want a game that allows the most skilled at making powerful characters to have their fun, while guiding those with less skill or different goals to a capable character, without the wide gap in powers levels. The newest edition accomplishes that for me too. Add to that the melding of ideas from my favorite RPG of all time, Earthdawn, and I have what I like. I'm glad others still have support for the system of their choice.

 

[technoextreme]

Yep, we were discussing power gaps, and going by what you posted the Warlock doesn't do any role exceptionally well... just mediocre at two... thus a power gap, so tell me what exactly don't you understand with the "Wait...what?" comment so I can clarify.

Now take the Fighter in contrast... He's near the top tier as a striker and is the top tier defender. You don't see the difference in effectiveness between these two classes?

Nope. Most classes actually fall under two roles with very few builds falling under a pure role. The PHB 2 and PHB3 actually does point this out using specific terminology while the PHB 1 generally hints at this. The fighter is particularly fun because he can double as defender/striker, defender/controller, and just go for a pure defender.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think that it can be safely said that based on the evidence in this thread and in the 5e announcement cancelled at Gencon that no Wizards cannot make an edition that can unite the fandom again.

I think that Steve Jackson Games or at least someone should come out with a game, D&d trhe Edition Wars.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I think that it can be safely said that based on the evidence in this thread and in the 5e announcement cancelled at Gencon that no Wizards cannot make an edition that can unite the fandom again.

I think that Steve Jackson Games or at least someone should come out with a game, D&d the Edition Wars.

Br4ts & Grogn3rds: 5th Edition.

The answer is pretty obviously 'no', and equally obvious that neither side wants them to.

The good news is that there is no need - each side has a game that they enjoy. The only problem comes when either side tries to tell the other that they are wrong.

I do not like 4e - but I do not need to.

Permeton does not like 3.X - but he does not need to.

As long as we each accept that the other is having fun, that neither is experiencing 'badwrongfun', then everything is fine. It is unlikely that we would encounter each the other in a game at a convention, unless it was neither of our expressed preferences. (In short, he may shoot my Paranoia Troubleshooter in the back, but that's okay, I have already hidden a grenade in his Cold Fun packet....)

The Auld Grump

 

[pemerton]

It is unlikely that we would encounter each the other in a game at a convention

Apart from anything else, I'm in Melbourne, Australia, whereas I think you're somewhere in the US!

It's probably 15 years since I've been to a convention. My favourite convention games used to be RQ, Stormbringer/Elric and CoC. That's partly because they had the best GMs. And also because they seem to lend themselves well to good oneshots.

 

[Balesir]

I do not like 4e - but I do not need to.

Permeton does not like 3.X - but he does need to.

Given the reasonable tone of the rest of your post, do I take it that there is a "not" missing as a result of mistaken omission, here?

Or were you trying to demonstrate your latter point about "The only problem comes..."?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Apart from anything else, I'm in Melbourne, Australia, whereas I think you're somewhere in the US!

It's probably 15 years since I've been to a convention. My favourite convention games used to be RQ, Stormbringer/Elric and CoC. That's partly because they had the best GMs. And also because they seem to lend themselves well to good oneshots.

Yeah, it would be a bit of a walk, wouldn't it?...

Paranoia is good for con games too - you can do absolutely rotten things to each other, and all sides will laugh.

CoC is my favorite for the last game on a Saturday night.

The Auld Grump