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

[Hussar]

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?

Which are we talking about now? Are we talking about warlocks or are we talking about fighters? Or, do you mean because fighters are possibly a bit over powered, this somehow means that warlocks are bad...

I'm just so confused.

BTW, considering the number of times you and others have pissed and moaned about me "putting words in your mouth" it would help if you didn't put words in mine. Where did I say that the warlock was "mediocre"? I did say he didn't out damage the ranger. That's true. But, "Outdamage the ranger" isn't exactly the dividing line of mediocrity.

Sure, he doesn't outdamage the ranger, but, he probably out defenses the ranger, out maneuver's the ranger and causes a whole lot more conditions on the bad guys than the ranger.

But, I guess that's just mediocre.

 

[Imaro]

Which are we talking about now? Are we talking about warlocks or are we talking about fighters? Or, do you mean because fighters are possibly a bit over powered, this somehow means that warlocks are bad...

I'm just so confused.

BTW, considering the number of times you and others have pissed and moaned about me "putting words in your mouth" it would help if you didn't put words in mine. Where did I say that the warlock was "mediocre"? I did say he didn't out damage the ranger. That's true. But, "Outdamage the ranger" isn't exactly the dividing line of mediocrity.

Sure, he doesn't outdamage the ranger, but, he probably out defenses the ranger, out maneuver's the ranger and causes a whole lot more conditions on the bad guys than the ranger.

But, I guess that's just mediocre.

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?

 

[Imaro]

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.

No, I'm looking at it from a role in combat aspect. I mean if I like skills vs. spells then a Rogue is best in 3.5... yet people claim the Wizard is more "powerful" than the Rogue... right? I think your preference for Warlocks is clouding your view. I wonder how well your party would do without your friends Ranger and you as their primary striker?

 

[Herschel]

26 pages to answer what could be done in two letters:

n.o.

 

[drothgery]

Each edition can develop a power gap, I never said they couldn't. IME, the gap in all editions except 3E was managable. Even 3E was managable up to a certain point in the expansion line.

IME, 2e was just as unmanageable as 3e at high levels, it's just that given the exponential XP tables and various other complications it was really, really hard to even get much past 9th level without throwing out the standard XP awards. High-level 2e was pretty much unplayable; high level 3e was merely difficult to run and somewhat complex to play for casters that prepared spells.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

No, I'm looking at it from a role in combat aspect. I mean if I like skills vs. spells then a Rogue is best in 3.5... yet people claim the Wizard is more "powerful" than the Rogue... right? I think your preference for Warlocks is clouding your view. I wonder how well your party would do without your friends Ranger and you as their primary striker?

Depends on what he brought to the table in place of the ranger. If he brought something that unbalanced the roles I'm sure we'd suffer. But I'm throwing out conditions that aid the entire party, whereas the ranger is just dealing damage. And he and the others deal more damage because my warlock is there. I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue at this point. A class that at least two of us admits has hybrid roles wouldn't make a good primary striker? That's not a far leap to make, but it is a weak argument to call what occurs between the two strikers a gap.

IME, 2e was just as unmanageable as 3e at high levels, it's just that given the exponential XP tables and various other complications it was really, really hard to even get much past 9th level without throwing out the standard XP awards. High-level 2e was pretty much unplayable; high level 3e was merely difficult to run and somewhat complex to play for casters that prepared spells.

That certainly could be. The power gap I've personally experienced is between power gamers and non power gamers. I have not experienced the gap between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. So 2E didn't really cause problems for us. It is my second least favorite edition of D&D though. Actually it might be my least favorite, because I really did enjoy 3E until the power gap issue exhibited. I wished I could have found a satisfactory way to overcome it. It wouldn't automatically have kept me from running 4E, but it would have made my final 2 years of running 3E enjoyable at the least.

 

[Herschel]

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?

This is where I think the misconception comes from. Simply put...

The Ranger does more damage.

The Warlock does more.
(good damage, status effects, zones, etc.)

Some classes can be tailored more than others. Rangers are about as straight-forward as you can get (and to me, archers are utterly dull) and are pure strikers.

Warlocks are mose versatile. If in a party with no dedicated controller, they can fill that role some while still doing good damage. If they're in a party that doesn't have other strikers, they can be tailored to max their damage while still getting in some control effects.

As for Fighters, they aren't top strikers and if they maximize their offense they aren't top defenders. They're a good class with a ton of support.

Roles aren't straightjackets and most classes have secondary roles, depending on the choices one makes.

 

[darkseraphim]

To answer the OP: I think WotC is in a no-win situation, but it's primarily one they built for themselves (along with Hasbro, I believe). They could make everyone happy by conditionally competing with themselves. In other words, republish all out-of print D&D works and editions, and to avoid "brand dilution" (or whatever marketers call it) that might hurt the latest edition, only offer older editions through the web and through print on demand. The latest edition can have brick-and-mortar stores, and heck even all the advertising, to itself.

In refusing to do that, and in taking away old-edition .pdfs, they have angered too many fans and snubbed too many play styles to get everyone back aboard the same train. I'm not sure how to say more on the specifics without provoking Ye Olde Edition Wars.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

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.

So you agree that the power gap is part of 3E's system? And that one must change that system in order to avoid it?

 

[prosfilaes]

So you agree that the power gap is part of 3E's system? And that one must change that system in order to avoid it?

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

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.