D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Lokiare]

I think the reason Paizo is pulling ahead has nothing to do with 4E at all. In fact while they were pumping out books once a month WotC had no problem keeping up with and dominating the market place.

Its only when the quality started slipping that 4E sales began to flag. Combined with the switch over to the buggy slow online tools, we saw the pulling ahead of Paizo.

I think it had more to do with customer service than products myself. In fact that's the current reason I'm not associating with WotC right now.

 

[Shadeydm]

I didn't realise I needed to go through this.

If you say you have told them then great. The post I quoted did not. I'm sure if it's truly broken it will be addressed.

Regarding DPS I played alongside an elven dagger master brutal rogue that did mind bending amounts of damage like nothing i've seen before or after. My current character is playing alongside a dragonborn sorceror who does amazing damage. I just don't see how its a problem for people its certainly not in either of the groups i mentioned. Its considered a good thing in 4E and a bad thing in previous editions. It seems very biased.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Regarding DPS I played alongside an elven dagger master brutal rogue that did mind bending amounts of damage like nothing i've seen before or after. My current character is playing alongside a dragonborn sorceror who does amazing damage. I just don't see how its a problem for people its certainly not in either of the groups i mentioned. Its considered a good thing in 4E and a bad thing in previous editions. It seems very biased.

Out of curiosity, roughly how much damange per hit and what level? Any sort of ballpark number? (Also which Paragon Path for the sorceror?) Because if comparing to your PCs, swordmages are known to be the lowest single target damage defenders bar none (assault swordmages being the exception) and your fighter does almost mathematically the lowest possible level 11 single target damage other than a pacifist cleric or pure-control wizard. The only way to lower it further would be to drop your strength.

Edit: And the sheer suckitude of Pregen Fighter #1 does appear to be being addressed. They are talking about Combat Superiority. Which means that the fighter now does do something well - and has options.

Edit 2: A level 11 rogue with a Dex of 20, a +3 weapon, and Backstabber and the Light Blade Expertise feats will do 10+d4+3d8 damage (avg 26) on a hit with combat advantage at a minimum. I'd expect Weapon Focus and Iron Armbands of Power at a minimum to push the damage up to an average of 30 (and critting 15% of attacks for 52+3d6 damage). This is normal for a Striker.

For comparison I've just created a level 11 ranger with some naive optimisation. The Twin Strike almost invariably has Combat Advantage and does 2*1d12+7 damage at a minimum modified by to hit chance. However if you have Prime Shot that's a further +5 damage, and +2 for an isolated target for 1d12+14 damage twice on your turn (potential damage without critting: 2d12 + 28 (+2d6 from hunters' quarry if either hits)). But the damage doesn't stop there because you have three interrupt attack encounter powers - all trigger easily and do a minimum of d12 + 13 damage, potentially rising to d12+20 damage with both triggered conditions.

Which means in each of the opening three rounds of combat with only a little tactical positioning you should be able to aim to do a total of 3d12 + 2d6 + 48 damage. This isn't a record - merely five minutes work. That's the dpr class that needs a nerf.

 

[Shadeydm]

Out of curiosity, roughly how much damange per hit and what level? Any sort of ballpark number? (Also which Paragon Path for the sorceror?) Because if comparing to your PCs, swordmages are known to be the lowest single target damage defenders bar none (assault swordmages being the exception) and your fighter does almost mathematically the lowest possible level 11 single target damage other than a pacifist cleric or pure-control wizard. The only way to lower it further would be to drop your strength.

Edit: And the sheer suckitude of Pregen Fighter [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] does appear to be being addressed. They are talking about Combat Superiority. Which means that the fighter now does do something well - and has options.

I didn't mean in comparison to my fighter or swordmage. I mean compared to anything i've seen in 4E. We would tease the rogue anytime he hit for less than 40 or for that matter anytime he missed because that was a rarity too lol. But when he went nova I was often inspired to cheer and clap. It would never occur to me to say omg thats broken I say omg thats awesome I'm so happy he is on my side!

I'm going to try and make time to post the fighter this weekend too since i would like to improve him and build upon the ToI synergies if possible. I believe we have an extra 10th level shard kicking around that could be exchanged for an item of of equal or lower level to help the cause too.

 

[Pickles JG]

I didn't mean in comparison to my fighter or swordmage. I mean compared to anything i've seen in 4E. We would tease the rogue anytime he hit for less than 40 or for that matter anytime he missed because that was a rarity too lol. But when he went nova I was often inspired to cheer and clap. It would never occur to me to say omg thats broken I say omg thats awesome I'm so happy he is on my side!

That's because of roles. They let 4e be asymetrically balanced because each role has a different strength & for strikers that's damage.

Leaders bringing everyone back from the brink o controllers neutralising several enemies for half the fight or defenders soaking loads of pain can be equally game effecting if less spectacular.

 

[Shadeydm]

That's because of roles. They let 4e be asymetrically balanced because each role has a different strength & for strikers that's damage.

Leaders bringing everyone back from the brink o controllers neutralising several enemies for half the fight or defenders soaking loads of pain can be equally game effecting if less spectacular.

So a label makes it ok in one edition and the lack of a label makes it bad everywhere else...neat.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So a label makes it ok in one edition and the lack of a label makes it bad everywhere else...neat.

No; but keep trying!

 

[Shadeydm]

No; but keep trying!

Not much trying except trying not to laugh at some W4rrior posts lol.

 

[Pickles JG]

So a label makes it ok in one edition and the lack of a label makes it bad everywhere else...neat.

They are not labels. They are descriptions of what the class ought to do in combat & a design tool WOTC used well in 4e. They are combat roles given that 4e is pretty much balanced around combat, & that is obviously not to everyone's taste but beside the point here.

Pre 3e classes did not have this kind of balance or clear function in a party in combator even accross the other pillars (yuk I hate that term).

Classes were supposed to provide this same sort of balance in all editions ie give everyone an opportunity to shine. However this did not work very well in earlier editions. A fighter out damaged a 3e rogue as well as having higher AC & more hit points. A rogue's out of combat abilities could be trivially outdone by a wizard with a few spells etc * If you played D&D combat heavy like I have always done rogues were just poor.


* At some high enough level. I did not have much problem with wizards outshining other classes in the levels I preferred 3-9 ish. The reasons I did not like higher level play was pretty much all about how the magic overwhelmed everything else.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So a label makes it ok in one edition and the lack of a label makes it bad everywhere else...neat.

No. The 2e fighter is fine despite being somewhere between one and a half times as strong in melee as any other class and twice as strong. Asymmetric balance - everyone gets time to shine.

The problem arises when the (possibly Wildshaped) Druid and his animal companion are as strong between them (or even individually) as the fighter. And they have skills. And they have spells. And they can heal.

You're allowed to have everyone being good at their thing as long as they don't walk over other people doing it. What you aren't allowed is to have someone better than the person in the party who is supposed to be good at it - and to have their thing.

 

[Shadeydm]

You're allowed to have everyone being good at their thing as long as they don't walk over other people doing it. What you aren't allowed is to have someone better than the person in the party who is supposed to be good at it - and to have their thing.

This is what you think 5E will be?

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is what you think 5E will be?

If it doesn't do that there's no point being a class based game. Classes exist because of niches and to allow you to support odd niches.

 

[Shadeydm]

someone better than the person in the party who is supposed to be good at it - and to have their thing.

Sorry for the confusion I guess my quote was too big. Is this what you think 5E will be?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sorry for the confusion I guess my quote was too big. Is this what you think 5E will be?

I think that based on Monte Cook's track record it was a worry. Based on the Warpriest actually being at least as good a fighter as the fighter in the playtest they have demonstrated that they see no problem heading down that path unless we kick up a fuss every time they head that way. Because their own internal balance and design demonstrably didn't have any issue with presenting this option in playtesting, and Mearls has been praising the 3.X fighter - the fighter that was on the receiving end of this issue.

So do I think it will be part of 5e? I don't know yet. I just know they have talked in a manner that doesn't see this as a major problem, and demonstrated that they are quite happy to put material out to open playtest with this problem. Which means until the next playtest packet drops all the hard examples we have seen from them are like this.

So do I think that's what 5E will be? I hope not. But I think it will if we don't keep telling them that it's not acceptable every time they offer us something like this. After all, it's what they offered us before feedback.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I expect them to genuinely deliver on their promise of a modular D&D for everyone, as opposed to going back to the past, with prejudice.

Not back to the past, just not catering to the little pet project of Heinsoo & Co. to make the D&D game into an expanded variant of Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures, which it is, just compare the rules; and in no way does that mean you can't "role-play" in 4th Ed, I DMed it consistently.

But yeah, I think a big point of 5th Ed is to give 4th Ed a wide berth.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So a label makes it ok in one edition and the lack of a label makes it bad everywhere else...neat.

If the Wizard class in 3E was specifically designed to only facilitate the Controller role (or any other, specific role), it would have worked. But it wasn't.

The Wizard could, say, summon a Monster to get his very own Defender. No Fighter needed to fulfill that role. The Rogue may be able to sneak attack for 1/2 level d6, but the Wizard could use Fireball to deal 1d6 per level to multiple targets. Sure, that's a lot of control (20 ft radius burst FTW), but it's also a boatload of damage.
The only role the Wizard could not fulfill was that of what 4E calls the Leader. (But the "only" component it couldn't fill was the healing, the buffing it could get nailed down - which, to be fair, was at least also fun for the rest of the party, since it made them better at what they could do.)

The labels were just the first step in "fixing" things - to ensure that classes would fit their label and not get any other labels was critical.

 

[Bluenose]

If the Wizard class in 3E was specifically designed to only facilitate the Controller role (or any other, specific role), it would have worked. But it wasn't.

The Wizard could, say, summon a Monster to get his very own Defender. No Fighter needed to fulfill that role. The Rogue may be able to sneak attack for 1/2 level d6, but the Wizard could use Fireball to deal 1d6 per level to multiple targets. Sure, that's a lot of control (20 ft radius burst FTW), but it's also a boatload of damage.
The only role the Wizard could not fulfill was that of what 4E calls the Leader. (But the "only" component it couldn't fill was the healing, the buffing it could get nailed down - which, to be fair, was at least also fun for the rest of the party, since it made them better at what they could do.)

Actually, a Wizard had things on their Summon Monster list that could heal competently enough. Most of the ones I remember were quite high level, mind you.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Not back to the past, just not catering to the little pet project of Heinsoo & Co. to make the D&D game into an expanded variant of Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures, which it is, just compare the rules; and in no way does that mean you can't "role-play" in 4th Ed, I DMed it consistently.

But yeah, I think a big point of 5th Ed is to give 4th Ed a wide berth.

I predict that if 5E ends up giving 4E a wide berth, 50-75% of the 4E community will reject it and as a result it will fail WotC's sales goals and 6E will arrive in 3-5 years, if D&D isn't shelved completely.

Either 5E needs to embrace 4E modularly and be able to support 4E-style play just as well as any other style, or they need to rethink 5E and release it as more than one system.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I predict that if 5E ends up giving 4E a wide berth, 50-75% of the 4E community will reject it and as a result it will fail WotC's sales goals and 6E will arrive in 3-5 years, if D&D isn't shelved completely.

Either 5E needs to embrace 4E modularly and be able to support 4E-style play just as well as any other style, or they need to rethink 5E and release it as more than one system.

I'm sorry but I don't think the 4th edition crowd was "that" large.

The success of Next will be down to "everyone", not the 4th edition crowd.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm sorry but I don't think the 4th edition crowd was "that" large.

The success of Next will be down to "everyone", not the 4th edition crowd.

I believe the 4E community is large enough that 5E can't succeed without it, and it doesn't need to be a majority for that to be true. A 4E rejection would compound 5E not being adopted by others, as I don't expect much of the OSR to adopt 5E and due to the fervor of a lot of Pathfinder fans there are going to be significant holdouts there.