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

[BryonD]

I'd call this a backhanded compliment, except there is no complement. Or I feel like the guy who didn't like Blair Witch Project and told that I just didn't get it. I guess I never 'grokked' 3E well enough to avoid this pitfall then, despite being a skilled DM in OD&D and AD&D. And now I am a skilled DM in 4E. All of this is player feedback. I guess I never figured out how to make all the BMX Bandits in my group feel like they were useless next to Angel Summoner.

Ah yes, the old Angel Summoner / BMX Bandit BS. I've never seen anything remotely approaching that as anything other than radically absurd hyperbole. If that term fits ANYWHERE in the conversation from your point of view, then, yeah, you just don't "grok" it at the same level as me.

I don't know you and I'm not looking to insult anyone. But that is my opinion of anyone who would say that pattern described their experience. And if someone says that it trumps any generic claims of other experience.

Can you and I have a debate about the merits of 4E as an RPG with the starting requirement that 4E is clearly just an attempt to clone WOW without a computer? I'm sure if I, or anyone else, took that postion as an absolute, you would just walk away convinced that you know better but trying to convince me was hopeless, so why bother.

I don't require the game to be perfect and never inferred that.

Well, as I said you ahve set the bar to an absurdly high level. If you agree that "4e is a board game" is true and "the power gap always exists" is true, then I think you are using standards that undermine useful conversation

Again, my premise is that you have players on the same skill level, although in your case it seems by choice. Good for you.

shrug, I responded to that already and you are just ignoring what I said. Which is fine. But ignoring what I said and then repeating a direct claim you have no means of knowing anything about is just foolish. So be it.

 

[Imaro]

And you must not be aware that the optimized ranger in our current group is really good at dishing out damage, but my warlock is better in his secondary role of controller. My character still contributes. The ranger never ends an encounter before I can make a worthwhile contribution.

So warlocks are sub-par in damage output and useful so long as a wizard doesn't join the group... got it.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Have I ever argued against this point? I've stated multiple times that I know and accept that some people DO see the problem. The statement has been made that the gap automatically happens. I'm saying that is not true.

I'm NOT one of "those people" that say the power gap automatically happens. And I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that it absolutely happens to everyone.

If the gap automatically happens, then your statement "in another way, you won't" is false. We both agree your statement is true. That's my point.

Are you confusing "systemic" for "automatic?"

I was describing what I thought of as a desirable style of play which could create a need for a real effort in order to avoid the issue.

And we're all happy your solution works for you. Your parameters for an enjoyable game are different than others.

Ah yes, the old Angel Summoner / BMX Bandit BS. I've never seen anything remotely approaching that as anything other than radically absurd hyperbole.

My "BS" is actual experience. To remove the ambiguity I'll state it simply again: If an encounter challenged the power gamers in my group, it over-challenged the non power gamers to the point where there characters could not contribute satisfactorally. If an encounter was an appropriate challenge for the non power gamers, it under-challenged the power gamers who were then able to end the encounter before the non power gamers' characters could not contribute satisfactorally. The power gamers would not enjoy the game if they were asked to tone down their characters. The non power gamers would not enjoy the game if the power gamers helped them build their character. Our main goal to playing the game is to get a chance to hang out as friends, therefore splitting the group to find all power gamers or all non power gamers is not a satisfactory conclusion. We tried to find ways to fix the problem that still allowed everyone to enjoy the game, but the problem was tied to a basic element of the system. I call this systemic, you are of course free to call it whatever you want. I know that this is not an automatic problem for all.

If that term fits ANYWHERE in the conversation from your point of view, then, yeah, you just don't "grok" it at the same level as me.

I don't know you and I'm not looking to insult anyone.

Gee. Glad you're not trying to insult anyone with your claims of superiority. What you don't "grok" is the needs my group has from a game that someone is willing to run. I would have been more than happy to give up the DM chair (I'm currently playing 4E Dark Sun) and continued playing 3.5 if anyone else in the group would have stepped forward. They felt the effort was not worth it either. So we found a game we liked. Is the problem automatic? No. Is it a common problem that arose long before 4E was even announced? Yes, see the E6 thread and various others here on ENWorld for evidence.

But that is my opinion of anyone who would say that pattern described their experience. And if someone says that it trumps any generic claims of other experience.

So you're entitled to your opinions and I'm allowed to have mine, but their BS? Isn't this YOU that is trumping MY experience because you never saw the problem? Pot, kettle.

Can you and I have a debate about the merits of 4E as an RPG with the starting requirement that 4E is clearly just an attempt to clone WOW without a computer? I'm sure if I, or anyone else, took that postion as an absolute, you would just walk away convinced that you know better but trying to convince me was hopeless, so why bother.

I'm not starting from absolutes, so your question is moot. I'm just relying upon personal experience, which apparently was "BS" and numerous threads dating back to the pre-4E threads, but those must have just been a bunch of BS too.

Well, as I said you ahve set the bar to an absurdly high level. If you agree that "4e is a board game" is true and "the power gap always exists" is true, then I think you are using standards that undermine useful conversation.

If you took the time to actually read others' posts instead of assuming a 4venger is just blabbing BS, the maybe we could have a useful conversation.

shrug, I responded to that already and you are just ignoring what I said. Which is fine. But ignoring what I said and then repeating a direct claim you have no means of knowing anything about is just foolish. So be it.

I'm was merely relaying what I thought you were saying. Your words probably seem clear to you as you type them, what with your superior intellect and all, but you are not very clear. I would actually be interested in how you avoid the power gap in your games. I still hold that I'm a well-experienced DM while at the same time I'm always open to learning new ways. It might not "bring me back" to 3.5 but you never know if I might need it at some point in the future for my current game.

So warlocks are sub-par in damage output and useful so long as a wizard doesn't join the group... got it.

You sound just like the guy in my group that would normally choose the ranger because of his DPR. He "knows" that his builds are superior to my characters. My beastmaster ranger "sucked." My warlock "sucks." Yet I keep showing just how useful my characters are, funny that.

 

[Imaro]

You sound just like the guy in my group that would normally choose the ranger because of his DPR. He "knows" that his builds are superior to my characters. My beastmaster ranger "sucked." My warlock "sucks." Yet I keep showing just how useful my characters are, funny that.

Good for you, it's too bad that 3.5/PF somehow made it impossible for you to create a character who was in any way "useful" (however you are choosing to define this term). Some of us however had no such impediments when playing the game. Different strokes I guess.

 

[BryonD]

I'm NOT one of "those people" that say the power gap automatically happens. And I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that it absolutely happens to everyone.

Yes, they have. That is what pulled me into this conversation and it continued after I disputed it.

Are you confusing "systemic" for "automatic?"

I'm the one who brought the word "systemic" into this conversation and I used it specifically to describe the claim that the issue was an automatic result due to the use of the system.

And we're all happy your solution works for you. Your parameters for an enjoyable game are different than others.

Thanks
I, and numeorus others for whom the system works, appreciate that.

My "BS" is actual experience.

Ok, then to also remove ambiguity, IMO you are doign something very poorly.

Play what works for you but don't blame your missing of the curve ball on the bat.

Gee. Glad you're not trying to insult anyone with your claims of superiority. What you don't "grok" is the needs my group has from a game that someone is willing to run. I would have been more than happy to give up the DM chair (I'm currently playing 4E Dark Sun) and continued playing 3.5 if anyone else in the group would have stepped forward. They felt the effort was not worth it either. So we found a game we liked. Is the problem automatic? No. Is it a common problem that arose long before 4E was even announced? Yes, see the E6 thread and various others here on ENWorld for evidence.

Shrug, it is what it is. I'm not going to lie to make you feel better. You are the one saying you have a problem.

I love E6. It offers an awesome version of low power fantasy role play built on the D20 backbone. If someone likes D20 but does find a power gap issue at high levels, then E6 will also remove that issue. But the existence of E6 does not provide evidence that the power gap is a major problem and far far less that is was a common problem. D20 as designed isn't INTENDED to be low power fantasy. My E6 conversations have focused on how it answers THAT desire.

So you're entitled to your opinions and I'm allowed to have mine, but their BS? Isn't this YOU that is trumping MY experience because you never saw the problem? Pot, kettle.

That isn't even a logical statement. I'm not trumping your experience. I am 100% accepting that your experience exists and I'm simply pointing out the implications of it. If you really do have a BMX problem, then there is a meaningful different right there.

I'm not starting from absolutes, so your question is moot. I'm just relying upon personal experience, which apparently was "BS" and numerous threads dating back to the pre-4E threads, but those must have just been a bunch of BS too.

If you took the time to actually read others' posts instead of assuming a 4venger is just blabbing BS, the maybe we could have a useful conversation.

Please, now you are just yammering. I never called you a 4venger or anything like that.

I DO consider BMX Bandit BS, and honestly, before this last post I was giving you credit that it wasn't possible that you were being sincere in the claim. That you now have stressed that this is FACT for you, then I accept that. But anyone who is remotely in the area of that being not hyperbole but reality is vastly removed from my personal experience.

I'm was merely relaying what I thought you were saying. Your words probably seem clear to you as you type them, what with your superior intellect and all, but you are not very clear. I would actually be interested in how you avoid the power gap in your games. I still hold that I'm a well-experienced DM while at the same time I'm always open to learning new ways. It might not "bring me back" to 3.5 but you never know if I might need it at some point in the future for my current game.

You complain about me not reading, but you are the one missing words that I brought into the conversation and missing the points being made.

I, again, will conceed that I had presumed you were being over the top with the BMX Bandit. And that DOES change my understanding of your position to hear you really meant it literally.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Good for you, it's too bad that 3.5/PF somehow made it impossible for you to create a character who was in any way "useful" (however you are choosing to define this term). Some of us however had no such impediments when playing the game. Different strokes I guess.

I didn't get to play much 3E, but when I did I could make a useful character. I mainly DMed and found it difficult to provide a fun challenge for the varied skill levels of my players in a way that was worth the effort involved or in a way that was a satisfactory fix for us. I'm happy others were able to avoid this issue in 3E altogether or had the time to put in the effort or found easier fixes that were satisfactory to them.

Yes, they have. That is what pulled me into this conversation and it continued after I disputed it.

I'm the one who brought the word "systemic" into this conversation and I used it specifically to describe the claim that the issue was an automatic result due to the use of the system.

I do not think systemic means what you think it means. But I don't want our conversation to devolve into deuling dictionaries. So I think the misunderstanding between us is in the use of the word systemic. I've shared with you my understanding of its meaning and want to be clear that I don't take it to mean absolute. I don't believe others here mean that the problem is absolute either, but they'd have to speak for themselves.

Ok, then to also remove ambiguity, IMO you are doign something very poorly.

Play what works for you but don't blame your missing of the curve ball on the bat.

Yet, plenty of other games; OD&D, AD&D, 4E, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Witch Hunter; do work for me. 3.5 in your analogy, to me, is not a bat and is instead a roman pillar. No wonder I can't hit the curve ball.

Your dislike of my game of choice is because it doesn't meet your tatses, but my dislike of yours is becuase I'm doing it wrong? Thank you Mr. Badwrongfun.

I DO consider BMX Bandit BS, and honestly, before this last post I was giving you credit that it wasn't possible that you were being sincere in the claim. That you now have stressed that this is FACT for you, then I accept that. But anyone who is remotely in the area of that being not hyperbole but reality is vastly removed from my personal experience.

Vastly removed doesn't mean the problem is with the person. Nor does it mean that the problem was not common. And, to be clear, a common problem does not necessarily mean a majority of people encountered it. All I stated was that the issue cropped up often during the initial run of 3E. And for years the advice from those who "grok" the system is mostly denial that the problem exists or claims that we are "doing it wrong" with no substantive advice on "how to do it right." I thought E6 was an attempt at meaningful advice to avoid this problem, but you seem to know more about E6 than I do and claim that it addressed something else entirely.

You complain about me not reading, but you are the one missing words that I brought into the conversation and missing the points being made.

I concede that we were using terms in different manners. I'm not trying to pick a fight over your use "systemic" versus anyone else. I understand what you mean by it now and hopefully I've explained what I mean by it.

The part I'm missing is where you actually explained how your group in particular either avoided this issue, now that you know my particulars, or fixed it. I would be interested in learning how you achieved that if you're willing to share. Or if you could point me back to where you already shared this I'd appreciate it.

I, again, will conceed that I had presumed you were being over the top with the BMX Bandit. And that DOES change my understanding of your position to hear you really meant it literally.

I know, I used an "internet catchphrase" that invokes certain attitudes and I should know better. There are ones that set me one edge when I see them here, so I shouldn't do that to others. I should have stated my actual issue plainly from the beginning.

 

[Hussar]

So warlocks are sub-par in damage output and useful so long as a wizard doesn't join the group... got it.

Wait... what?

Yes, the warlock does less damage than the ranger but he gets controllery abilities to make up the difference.

Yes, the warlock is a less capable controller than the wizard but he's still a striker and out damaging the wizard quite nicely.

So, even in a group with a ranger, a wizard and a warlock, the warlock's still holding his own.

By the same token, there has been recognition that warlocks needed some loving, so the recent rules updates did raise the bar for warlocks quite a lot. The fact that warlocks now do their curse damage multiple times per round means they can start dealing out some serious punishment.

 

[Imaro]

Wait... what?

Yes, the warlock does less damage than the ranger but he gets controllery abilities to make up the difference.

Yes, the warlock is a less capable controller than the wizard but he's still a striker and out damaging the wizard quite nicely.

So, even in a group with a ranger, a wizard and a warlock, the warlock's still holding his own.

By the same token, there has been recognition that warlocks needed some loving, so the recent rules updates did raise the bar for warlocks quite a lot. The fact that warlocks now do their curse damage multiple times per round means they can start dealing out some serious punishment.

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?

 

[Hussar]

Vyvyan Basterd - ask and ye shall receive: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Warlock Rules Updates)

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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?

Maybe because we don't agree with your objective statement of "mediocre." I consider my warlock to be, to borrow your phrase, "near the top tier" as both a striker and a controller, with better overall defenses than either the ranger or the wizard. Many of my powers enable the ranger to do the damage he does. In a vaccuum you might convince me, but as part of the team dynamic there is no wide gap between the classes.

As for Fighter vs. Warlock, the Fighter's balance is different because he's on the front line. He can be "top" and "near top" without outclassing the warlock because the fighter is expected to hold the line and suck up the brunt of damage. And he wouldn't do as good of a job at it either without the support of his controllers and leaders.

I think you have a very B&W view of what's "best" and the type of character you enjoy may be clouding that. If one likes DPR, then the ranger is best. If one likes holding the line, the fighter is best. If one likes supporting the team in meaningful ways, other classes fit the bill. The gap only becomes too large, IMO, when a character is unable to make a real contribution to the party, not when you just stand there and compare DPR sizes. At that point one is probably just compensating for something.