D&D 5E How viable is 5E to play at high levels?

[Sacrosanct]

and it's brought back enough of those balance-intolerant fans that it's returned to a larger fraction* of it's fad-years popularity.
.

No one is "intolerant of balance." That's loaded phrasing betraying your bias, and not accurate at all. The people who left 4e didn't do so because it became more balanced. They left because the feel of the game shifted dramatically in ways they didn't enjoy playing, which most often than not had nothing to do with balance. To speak for myself as to why I chose to skip the edition, it had nothing to do with balance, but everything to do with making it feel like a tactical boardgame where every class felt the same because they all did the same thing in all three pillars, just with the serial numbers filed off. I.e., special ability sword attack, or special ability magic attack all had the same mechanical result. I prefer niche protection. Also, I'm not a fan of AEDU at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No one is "intolerant of balance."

Sure they are. Some folks are balance-intolerant, some folks are lactose-intolerant - it just make's 'em sick.

It's not as severe as all that, /some/ balance can usually be tolerated. 5e is more of a 'reduced-balanced product' rather than 'certified balance-free,' it has a safe level of balance, unlikely to cause unpleasant reactions in most players.

[sblock="If you remember the edition war, you don't need to see this again, and if you don't, you're better off never seeing it"]

The people who left 4e didn't do so because it became more balanced. They left because the feel of the game shifted dramatically in ways they didn't enjoy playing

Distinction without a difference.
Sure, there's a difference in feel between a game where Tier 1 classes utterly dominate and system mastery is intentionally granted lavish rewards vs one where classes are somewhat balanced and optimization tricks keep getting nerfed by errata.

Also, I'm not a fan of AEDU at all.

AEDU was a big part of how 4e balanced classes, yes.

every class felt the same because they all did the same thing in all three pillars, just with the serial numbers filed off. .. I.e., special ability sword attack, or special ability magic attack all had the same mechanical result.

Let's compare a few:

At-Wills:

Fighter exploit - mechanical result:
Cleave - untyped damage to a target w/in reach plus untyped damage equal to STR mod to a second adjacent character, both only if the attack on the first target's AC hit.
Reaping Strike - untyped damage to a target w/in reach on a hit vs AC, STR mod damage to the same target on a miss.
Tide of Iron - untyped damage and push 1 to a target adjacent, and move into a square he vacates, all on a hit vs AC.

Wizard:
Scorching Burst - fire damage to some, none or all of 9 targets in a burst w/in 10, depending on whether you hit each of their REF defenses individually.
Cloud of Daggers - force damage to (generally) one target w/in 25' on a hit vs REF, additional force damage equal to INT mod at start of turn to anyone in that 5' area before the end of your next turn, regardless of hit or miss.
Thunderwave - thunder damage & push CON mod to to some, none or all of 9 targets in a blast with your space as the origin, depending on whether you hit each of their FORT defenses individually.

Not the same mechanical results, /at all/, nor are you likely to find a lot of martial & arcane powers with results a lot more similar than those.

OTOH, in other editions of D&D, classes use many of the exact same spells, not just the same mechanical results of casting different ones, but the exact same spell. One's worshiping a god, one's studying a book, one's made a pact with infernal forces, but they might all do the exact same thing. Virtually none of that in 4e. (In Essentials, the Cleric(Warpriest) and Druid(Sentinel) both get Healing Word, for about the only instance).

Why would you claim that you didn't eschew 4e because it was better-balanced, but then feel the need to give an alternate reason that doesn't stand up to scrutiny? That, in fact, applies more plausibly to other editions? [/sblock]

Balance is only one of several qualities a game can have, it's OK to have a preference about those various qualities, to value some over others or even actively dislike one or another. It's especially OK in the context of a quality that a game has long lacked being jarringly inserted into a late edition.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sure they are. Some folks are balance-intolerant, some folks are lactose-intolerant - it just make's 'em sick.

It's not as severe as all that, /some/ balance can usually be tolerated. 5e is more of a 'reduced-balanced product' rather than 'certified balance-free,' it has a safe level of balance, unlikely to cause unpleasant reactions in most players.

[sblock="If you remember the edition war, you don't need to see this again, and if you don't, you're better off never seeing it"]

Distinction without a difference.
Sure, there's a difference in feel between a game where Tier 1 classes utterly dominate and system mastery is intentionally granted lavish rewards vs one where classes are somewhat balanced and optimization tricks keep getting nerfed by errata.

AEDU was a big part of how 4e balanced classes, yes.

Let's compare a few:

At-Wills:

Fighter exploit - mechanical result:
Cleave - untyped damage to a target w/in reach plus untyped damage equal to STR mod to a second adjacent character, both only if the attack on the first target's AC hit.
Reaping Strike - untyped damage to a target w/in reach on a hit vs AC, STR mod damage to the same target on a miss.
Tide of Iron - untyped damage and push 1 to a target adjacent, and move into a square he vacates, all on a hit vs AC.

Wizard:
Scorching Burst - fire damage to some, none or all of 9 targets in a burst w/in 10, depending on whether you hit each of their REF defenses individually.
Cloud of Daggers - force damage to (generally) one target w/in 25' on a hit vs REF, additional force damage equal to INT mod at start of turn to anyone in that 5' area before the end of your next turn, regardless of hit or miss.
Thunderwave - thunder damage & push CON mod to to some, none or all of 9 targets in a blast with your space as the origin, depending on whether you hit each of their FORT defenses individually.

Not the same mechanical results, /at all/, nor are you likely to find a lot of martial & arcane powers with results a lot more similar than those.

OTOH, in other editions of D&D, classes use many of the exact same spells, not just the same mechanical results of casting different ones, but the exact same spell. One's worshiping a god, one's studying a book, one's made a pact with infernal forces, but they might all do the exact same thing. Virtually none of that in 4e. (In Essentials, the Cleric(Warpriest) and Druid(Sentinel) both get Healing Word, for about the only instance).

Why would you claim that you didn't eschew 4e because it was better-balanced, but then feel the need to give an alternate reason that doesn't stand up to scrutiny? That, in fact, applies more plausibly to other editions? [/sblock]

Balance is only one of several qualities a game can have, it's OK to have a preference about those various qualities, to value some over others or even actively dislike one or another. It's especially OK in the context of a quality that a game has long lacked being jarringly inserted into a late edition.

You completely missed the point, and seem to think that balance is the same as the reasons I gave. Perhaps I need to explain it again.

AEDU, while a way they worked balance, doesn't mean balance itself. You could easily have two classes with completely different power levels using the AEDU mechanic. My issue with it has nothing to do with balance, but the mechanic itself.

Just like my distaste for the feel of the game being a tactical boardgame had nothing to do with balance because you can have a tactical boardgame what is horribly balanced. It was that feel that I didn't like. Balance has nothing to do with it. I take offense you ascribing how I really feel like you somehow know me, especially since I'm telling you straight up that you're wrong as to why I feel that way I explained.

So when you use phrases like "balance intolerant", you're not only making a strawman, but you're insulting people with other tastes as yours. Stop it. Fans didn't abandon 4e because they were intolerant of balance. I am quickly being reminded why I had you on ignore, because you're being very intellectually dishonest in your replies.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The game is both art and science. Or it is either. It's up to each of us to decide.

But having said that....it really does seem to be the more science-minded folks who declare that the game "doesn't work" or "isn't viable". Seems to me to say more about the expectations of that viewpoint than of the game itself.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You completely missed the point, and seem to think that balance is the same as the reasons I gave. Perhaps I need to explain it again.

Repetition won't change the correlation between those reasons and the features that made the game better-balanced.

[sblock="Edition stuff"]

AEDU, while a way they worked balance, doesn't mean balance itself. You could easily have two classes with completely different power levels using the AEDU mechanic.

Hypothetically, you could, but 4e didn't, there were some non-AEDU classes that were on the sad side, and two AEDU classes that were badly under-supported, but nothing like the class imbalance to be found in other editions.

My issue with it has nothing to do with balance, but the mechanic itself.

I understand the distinction. You don't want to say you object to balance, you just object to everything that carries a risk of too much balance, on various grounds that have nothing to do with balance.
It's just not a difference.

Just like my distaste for the feel of the game being a tactical boardgame had nothing to do with balance because you can have a tactical boardgame what is horribly balanced.

But 4e wasn't horribly balanced, and wasn't a tactical boardgame. So it's neither here nor there. 4e combat encounters had somewhat-balanced guidelines for determining difficulty, though, which rested on a number of mechanics, including those you conflate with a boardgame feel. So, again, I see the distinction you're drawing, but there's no difference.

I take offense you ascribing how I really feel like you somehow know me, especially since I'm telling you straight up that you're wrong as to why I feel that way I explained.

You said:

. The people who left 4e didn't do so because...

You may have gone on to use yourself as if you were a representative example, but you were not speaking only for yourself, and I was responding on that same level.

So when you use phrases like "balance intolerant", you're not only making a strawman, but you're insulting people with other tastes as yours. Stop it. Fans didn't abandon 4e because they were intolerant of balance.

Meh, it's an analogy to lactose-intolerance. I suppose it's unfair to the lactose-intolerant because it's not a choice on their part, while it may be to some extent on yours. Certainly it was your choice to bring in an appeal to popularity to support the 'more art than science' argument - ironically, one where we're on the same side - and to do so in the form of edition warring.

I am quickly being reminded why I had you on ignore, because you're being very intellectually dishonest in your replies.

So, first, you accuse me of being insulting, then you stoop to insults and threats? [/sblock]

Can we get back to how 5e D&D is more art than science? Or maybe even to it's viability for high-level play?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Repetition won't change the correlation between those reasons and the features that made the game better-balanced.

[sblock="Edition stuff"] Hypothetically, you could, but 4e didn't, there were some non-AEDU classes that were on the sad side, and two AEDU classes that were badly under-supported, but nothing like the class imbalance to be found in other editions.

I understand the distinction. You don't want to say you object to balance, you just object to everything that carries a risk of too much balance, on various grounds that have nothing to do with balance.
It's just not a difference.

But 4e wasn't horribly balanced, and wasn't a tactical boardgame. So it's neither here nor there. 4e combat encounters had somewhat-balanced guidelines for determining difficulty, though, which rested on a number of mechanics, including those you conflate with a boardgame feel. So, again, I see the distinction you're drawing, but there's no difference.

You said:

You may have gone on to use yourself as if you were a representative example, but you were not speaking only for yourself, and I was responding on that same level.

Meh, it's an analogy to lactose-intolerance. I suppose it's unfair to the lactose-intolerant because it's not a choice on their part, while it may be to some extent on yours. Certainly it was your choice to bring in an appeal to popularity to support the 'more art than science' argument - ironically, one where we're on the same side - and to do so in the form of edition warring.

So, first, you accuse me of being insulting, then you stoop to insults and threats? [/sblock]

Can we get back to how 5e D&D is more art than science? Or maybe even to it's viability for high-level play?

Clearly either you're trolling for lulz, or you have some serious reading comprehension issues. What part of "I don't care about balance" don't you get? AEDU could be extremely balanced, or not balance at all and it wouldn't make one bit of difference because it's the mechanic that I don't like. I don't like how powers and abilities are broken down like that, mostly because in the style I prefer, an "encounter" can last most of the dungeon in long strung out encounter, depending on what happens in game play (attracting nearby monsters, etc). AEDU doesn't support that style by the definition of AEDU stands for. I said it felt like a tactical boardgame to me, because it did. Both in the times I did play it, and the numerous times I watched others play it, when 95% of the game time was spent moving minis around a board in combat. Nothing to do with how balanced the game is.

And yet you are dead set on telling me the real reason I don't like it. Knock it off. I'm telling you exactly the reasons why I don't like something, and you continue to infer I'm lying to myself and it's for other reasons. That's why I said you're being intellectually dishonest because you are. That's not an insult or a threat. An insult is you telling people who didn't like 4e that they are "balance intolerant".

 

[Tony Vargas]

Clearly either you're trolling for lulz

It's not like I'm unfamiliar with the symptoms of lactose intolerance, and didn't think that the analogy mightn't create an amusing image in a mind or two out there.
Low humor, I admit.

What part of "I don't care about balance" don't you get?

I get that it's an assertion that you make about yourself, personally. I also notice that the reasons you bring up also correlate to things that improved balance. But, hey, to the extent that you speak only for yourself, you may, indeed, avail yourself of the shield of subjectivity, as far as it goes.

[sblock="Edition Stuff continues"]

No one is "intolerant of balance." The people who left 4e didn't do so because it became more balanced.

But, those are blanket claims.

in the style I prefer, an "encounter" can last most of the dungeon in long strung out encounter, depending on what happens in game play (attracting nearby monsters, etc). AEDU doesn't support that style by the definition of AEDU stands for.

Now, that's not just a statement of subjective opinion, but of the system's functionality, so I'm going to field it. You actually /can/ run a complex encounter in 'waves' (attracting nearby monsters, etc) - it's not exactly an unheard of DM trick in 4e, to challenge a party with masses of enemies - you can even integrate it into a behind-the-scenes skill challenge of dungeon exploration. It was how I converted Temple of the Frog (0D&D Blackmoor) to Essentials.

I said it felt like a tactical boardgame to me, because it did.

Fair 'nuff. And if you say that Doctor Zhivago felt like a high-adrenaline thrill-ride to you, I'd give your opinion similar weight.

Both in the times I did play it, and the numerous times I watched others play it, when 95% of the game time was spent moving minis around a board in combat. Nothing to do with how balanced the game is.

But also nothing like a board game in actual play. So, your contention is that it felt like a boardgame, because people used minis on a grid. But, presumably, since you were also referring to people fleeing to PF, you did not have that reaction to 3.x/PF, yet it made very heavy use of minis, grids, templates, alternately-counted-diagonals, turn-based movement, &c - all things that would make a 3.x combat that lasted more than a surprise round look like moving minis around on a board from the outside.

What was different in 3.x/PF?

Well, there are two obvious differences: 3e often had very short combats compared to 4e's 'set pieces,' and 3e tended towards 'static combat' which 4e intentionally took a penduluum-swing away from.

However, both of them are still tangled up with balance. 3e combats got very short, very quickly, when the game got into 'rocket tag' by optimizing damage and SoD DCs, which was terribly imbalanced, of course, and 4e came along and 'fixed' that, not only could you not cheese up untouchable save DCs (the sub-system didn't even work that way anymore!) but there prettymuch weren't SoDs, and damage-optimization wouldn't drop a solo in the surprise round. Encounter design guidelines were more robustly balanced. Classes were better-balanced, and that meant casters had far fewer spells, and very few of them could be made into "I win buttons" with applied system mastery - and those that could got swiftly errata'd. Similarly, 3e combats notoriously tended to be 'static' because the option of full attacking was so much better than moving (and you could only 5' step if you full attacked). What's that, one choice being clearly so much better it overshadows another? Yep, imbalance.

So, yes, you saw people moving minis around a lot, because they were playing a balanced game that didn't degenerate into rocket tag and static full-attack-damage-trading.

An insult is you telling people who didn't like 4e that they are "balance intolerant".

Hey, it was a balanced game, you didn't like it - some people disliked it so much they started the edition war - all the reasons you (and they) point to for not liking it map to things that improved balance, or even just dissolve under scrutiny.

It's not an unwarranted observation.
[/sblock]

I'm telling you exactly the reasons why I don't like something

So, you retract your blanket assertion that absolutely no one dislikes balance and everyone who shares your dislike shares your exact same reasons?

I'm OK with that, but I remain curious about a point or two under the cut, if you'd like to address them in your own sblock or a PM, while the main discussion continues, I'm game.

The game is both art and science. Or it is either. It's up to each of us to decide.

But having said that....it really does seem to be the more science-minded folks who declare that the game "doesn't work" or "isn't viable". Seems to me to say more about the expectations of that viewpoint than of the game itself.

It would be like the artistic-minded saying the game was 'boring' or 'stifles creativity,' sure, it's assessing only one aspect of the game.

Edit: But, I suppose it does say something about the game, itself, too, just an incomplete picture...

 

[Sacrosanct]

I anxiously await the references to people who said they left 4e because their #1 reason was it was too balanced for their tastes. I really look forward to that evidence. Every reason I've seen came down to other factors that had nothing to do with balance: how it felt, the mechanics, etc. Things that while may impact balance, are not dependent or reliant on it at all. AEDU is just a mechanic, like any other mechanic, that isn't on itself any more balanced than anything else. It can both be extremely balanced, or completely imbalanced depending on how it's used.

So to basically call someone a liar who says they don't like that mechanic for how it's structured as opposed to some unrelated thing is both lazy and dishonest. It's lazy edition warring to say that everyone who doesn't like your favorite edition just doesn't like balanced games (I'm sorry, are "intolerant of balance"), regardless of what they actually happen to be saying are the reasons.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It would be like the artistic-minded saying the game was 'boring' or 'stifles creativity,' sure, it's assessing only one aspect of the game.

Edit: But, I suppose it does say something about the game, itself, too, just an incomplete picture...

Of those two groups (as loosely defined as they are) there could be any number of reasons for people to claim one or more elements of the game as negative. But, sticking to what's been said in this thread, it seems that the people who expect the rules and regulations to yield very exact results who seem to be more disappointed, while the folks who are ready and willing to change the rules and regulations a bit are claiming their experience to be largely positive.

Take [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s post a page or so back, where he cited his preference for a more scientific approach to the game. He may be right, that there are games that can be designed that achieve such scientific balance, where the formulae used to create the game create clear, consistent, and predictable results. That's great.

But is that the game we're all discussing? I don't think so. I think that's case of someone trying to make the game what they want it to be....and that's fine, but we should acknowledge it as such.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Of those two groups (as loosely defined as they are) there could be any number of reasons for people to claim one or more elements of the game as negative. But, sticking to what's been said in this thread, it seems that the people who expect the rules and regulations to yield very exact results who seem to be more disappointed, while the folks who are ready and willing to change the rules and regulations a bit are claiming their experience to be largely positive.
.

It's even more confusing when you've got someone in this thread demanding that RAW out of the box fit their desires with an unwillingness to modify or change them, but in this thread, say that they are more than willing to ignore or modify rules to fit what they want.

so.....I don't know....shrug