D&D 5E The Door, Player Expectations, and why 5e can't unify the fanbase.

[WarlockLord]

I'm going to start by quoting the "Bounded Accuracy" article.

For example, we can say that breaking down an iron-banded wooden door is a DC 17 check, and that can live in the game no matter what level the players are. There's no need to constantly escalate the in-world descriptions to match a growing DC; an iron-banded door is just as tough to break down at 20th level as it was at 1st, and it might still be a challenge for a party consisting of heroes without great Strength scores. There's no need to make it a solid adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes just to make it a moderate challenge for the high-level characters. Instead, we let that adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes have its own high DC as a reflection of its difficulty in the world. If players have the means of breaking down the super difficult adamantine door, it's because they pursued player options that make that so, and it is not simply a side effect of continuing to adventure.

I think this quote helps illustrate why 5e is not going to be able to unify both sides of the edition war.

In the thread NeonChameleon started about bringing 5e players to 4e, he pointed out that one of the editions's strengths was making it so that wizard spells don't obviate skills. But I think this is part of the problem. The fact that in 4e, things you do don't really change. A 1st level band of noobs runs into a wall. They need to climb it to cross it. A 30th level band of an epic archmage, a badass warrior dude who can randomly walk out of the afterlife, another dude who is a living divine avatar, and a demigod, faced with a wall, are going to climb it. It doesn't make it that much more epic when the 30th level guys are climbing a wall of space force or whatever, they're still stuck on the same basic challenge: can we climb a wall? And the answer is usually going to be some sort of climb check. And that's a problem a lot of 3.X players have with the system. In 3.X you could do all sorts of crazy crap, like burrow under the wall, smash it, fly over it, phase through it, and whatnot.

And to be fair to 4e, some similar measures exist. The cleric could roll up in his cloud chariot and tell all the climbing and jumping people they are officially obsolete because he has a pimp car. The wizard could phase himself through the wall with various utilities, or burn mass fly or fly. They can both laugh at the martial characters, because even if those guys took ritual caster they still had to set 2 feats on fire and are probably going to be worse at rituals due to lower stats. And of course, rituals kinda suck, and you can't attack the wall if the DM refuses to assign it hit points. I excluded these in my initial analysis because a lot of people don't want "Bob the Climber" to be invalidated for some reason.

On the other hand, a lot of 3.X players think that climbing, jumping, and not flying around are low-level concepts that deserve to be phased out eventually. In 3.X, after a certain point, you don't care how big the bear is because you can fly over it and throw tiny rocks at it until it dies. 4e, on the other hand, seems to fetishize standing in melee and stabbing things in the face. These are two pretty different viewpoints I don't see one game reconciling.

Now none of this should be taken to mean that fighters need to suck. I personally believe Tome of Battle didn't go nearly far enough in buffing the fighter types. But they need real, out of combat interesting abilities. If the wizard is flying, they should be able to walk on the wind because they're awesome. They should be able to smash mountains, run really fast, dance on the tips of spears, lasso tornados, and straight up not die. If Pecos Bill, Cucuhlainn, Roland, or Benkei could do it, so can the fighter. I suspect I will get many comments about the terrible anime fighter and how real fighters are totally mundane warriors who are somehow worthy of respect by guys who can fly around, teleport, turn invisible, and conjure armies of minions, but quite frankly the "mundane only" fighter is a joke which falls apart the first time your fighter deals enough damage to wreck a main battle tank or survives being sat on by a dragon. But again, people don't agree on this, and this is why unification is not possible.

TL;DR: The 3e and 4e max power levels are vastly different from each other and that's why unification is impossible.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

They'll never unify the fan base into playing the same way, because that unity was never there in the first place. As games have gotten more specific in this or that, what was always there has simply become more apparent.

Happily, for WotC, they don't need to unify the fan base into all getting along. They just need to provide them a unified product that they all (or most of them anyway) want to buy. That's mostly possible, with some niche outliers that get missed or bypassed.

The people that don't like 4E are not going to like the way I run 5E. The people that really got into 3.5/PF Pazio adventures are not going to run the kind of game I like with 5E.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In the thread NeonChameleon started about bringing 5e players to 4e, he pointed out that one of the editions's strengths was making it so that wizard spells don't obviate skills. But I think this is part of the problem. The fact that in 4e, things you do don't really change. A 1st level band of noobs runs into a wall. They need to climb it to cross it. A 30th level band of an epic archmage, a badass warrior dude who can randomly walk out of the afterlife, another dude who is a living divine avatar, and a demigod, faced with a wall, are going to climb it. It doesn't make it that much more epic when the 30th level guys are climbing a wall of space force or whatever, they're still stuck on the same basic challenge: can we climb a wall?

This is a weakness in 4e, I agree. Heroic tier works. Paragon tier just about works. But epic tier is a failure at being epic. (Older editions handle this different ways - in 3.X only the casters turn epic, in AD&D the game changes at level 10, and I'm not sure about BECMI).

Much better would be for the 30th level fighter to be able to slice straight through reality. Or bring his mace down and create a chasm under the wall.

And for the record, last time my 4e monk was faced with a 30 foot wall, he ran straight up the side and kicked the archers off the battlements. This was at mid-heroic tier. Climb roll, what climb roll? We have Wire Fu.

 

[Minigiant]

The epic fighter pulls out his weapon and destroys the wall in a single action.

The epic ranger whistles and his pet fey bear (that he raised since a cub D'aaaww) blasts the wall with his roar and he rides it over the rubble.

The epic rogue climbs or jumps over the wall. He can't fail the check due to skill mastery.

The epic monk meditates then either knocks a hole in it (fighter-style) or flips over it (rogue-style) or phases through it (mystic style)

The epic warlord pumps up another character or henchman to use one of their wall-defeating abilities at lower or no cost.

Just because Many 4E fans like some sort of balance, does not mean we all want everything the same or martial characters to use the system of the magical.

BYW, the horribad support for epic in 4E limited the mechanical epiciness of 4E epic. Not the system.

 

[BobTheNob]

Not a bad observation, especially the 3.5 vs 4e approaches. Whilst my own expereince that what you were stating for 3.5 was more our groups 2e experience, in retrospect I still experienced the same thing.

There is one thing you are missing however is the players ability to adapt to the way the new game play's.

We (my group) are coming off 4e and frankly, Im looking at getting back into the 3.5 groove, I would even go as far as saying the pre-3.5 back to 2e groove. Will 5e be everything I want it to be? Probably not. Will it have enough regression to previous standards that it will entice me?...ahhh, now that is the question.

We adapted when we picked up 4e, and 5e only need to be closer to what Im looking for for me to be willing to adapt again. The luddites wont, fine, they never do. Dont underestimate peoples ability to take on new things (or given 5e is such a tip of the hat to previous editions...old things?). I not so sure I share your pessimism on this topic.

 

[Rhenny]

As mentioned above, I think that 5e can be successful if it gives groups the ability to pick and choose the feel/experience they each want. Personally, I'd like a game that relies heavily on a loose core, has magic that can defy reality, and at times have full blown tactical combats ala 4e style.

I adopted 4e and had lots of fun with it for about 2 years (monthly online games), but since combats took so long, most of our sessions were overbalanced on combat, or if we explored and roleplayed, we were unable to get to do combat. I started to yearn for quicker, more story driven games, with an occasional longer combat. It was hard to do with 4e because shorter combats seemed too trivial for the players. At times, I actually wanted to find more ways (either through use of spells like spells from 1e, 2e and 3e, or through smart play) to short circuit combats so that they could end more quickly or be avoided entirely. Unfortunately, it felt as if the only way I could challenge the players was to pit them against a slew of challenging opponents in strange terrain. I felt that each encounter I had to "one up" to keep the stakes and tension growing.

I need a 5e, and if it feels like D&D, and we can roleplay, explore and combat (in equal amounts), and combat moves fast enough to sustain the narrative not break the narrative, and each player can have tons of choices when building and developing his or her character, I'll be extremely happy.

 

[WarlockLord]

The epic fighter pulls out his weapon and destroys the wall in a single action.

The epic ranger whistles and his pet fey bear (that he raised since a cub D'aaaww) blasts the wall with his roar and he rides it over the rubble.

The epic rogue climbs or jumps over the wall. He can't fail the check due to skill mastery.

The epic monk meditates then either knocks a hole in it (fighter-style) or flips over it (rogue-style) or phases through it (mystic style)

The epic warlord pumps up another character or henchman to use one of their wall-defeating abilities at lower or no cost.

Just because Many 4E fans like some sort of balance, does not mean we all want everything the same or martial characters to use the system of the magical.

BYW, the horribad support for epic in 4E limited the mechanical epiciness of 4E epic. Not the system.

But none of these are actually that epic. I mean, a mid-level 3e character could do these. The warlord is essentially giving using White Raven Tactics on someone who can do something, which is nice, but then why do you need a warlord? I agree with you that these should all be options, but none of them are high-level enough abilities to compare to a 3.X caster or balor. I mean, I HATE 3.X.s imbalance. Any game system that pretends that a certain character is viable with others only for it to not be true has failed the player. These aren't necessarily bad examples...but again, not close to what a high-level caster is capable of conceptually. We haven't even gotten into high-level 3.X battles where people are fighting demon wizards who can fly, teleport anywhere at will, telekinetically lock you down, control your mind, and destroy your magic.. (Scroll down to the balor). Skill mastery or having a bear are not going to get you close enough to hurt this guy. And all of these guys, as currently written, have trouble dealing with flying enemies, which is a staple of the fantasy genre.

Meanwhile the cleric and the wizard are in that cloud chariot flying through the feywild to pick up hawt eladrin chicks for their party in the magnificent mansion.

 

[Fifth Element]

"Both sides" of the edition war? There are more than two sides. In my experience many gamers take pains to put up walls between their preferred edition and others' preferred editions, at least back to the AD&D vs. Basic split. The D&D fanbase will never be unified because a portion of it seems to desire disunity.

But that's not really the goal. The goal is to maximize the number of the fanbase who are interested enough in 5E to buy it.

 

[Harlock]

But that's not really the goal. The goal is to maximize the number of the fanbase who are interested enough in 5E to buy it.

If that's true, WotC is shooting themselves in the foot. The real goal should be growing the fanbase.

 

[pemerton]

In the thread NeonChameleon started about bringing 5e players to 4e, he pointed out that one of the editions's strengths was making it so that wizard spells don't obviate skills. But I think this is part of the problem. The fact that in 4e, things you do don't really change.

I don't think this has to be true. And I say that because in my own 4e game it is not true.

The PHB and DMG both have a page or so explaining the differences between tiers. And the skill rules create the mechanical space to implement some of those differences, I think. At heroic tier I would not have permitted a PC to make an Endurance check to stick his hands into the forge to physically hold down an artefact being reshaped by dwarven artisans - and the player probably would never have asked. In paragon tier, when the player asked I set a DC and the scene duly played out.

 

[Remathilis]

You never catch ALL the fish you are trolling for.

WotC doesn't need every player. It needs some of the 3e fanbase, some of the Pathfinder fanbase, some of the 4e fanbase, some of the OS fanbase, some of the lapsed fanbase, and some fresh meat. If WotC manages to capture 15% of each group, it will be far and away the most played D&D game again.

It doesn't need to be a dessert topping, a hair gel, and a floor wax to cater to all those groups; it just needs to emulate the best of each and draw away some from each group to succeed.

 

[Minigiant]

But none of these are actually that epic. I mean, a mid-level 3e character could do these. The warlord is essentially giving using White Raven Tactics on someone who can do something, which is nice, but then why do you need a warlord? I agree with you that these should all be options, but none of them are high-level enough abilities to compare to a 3.X caster or balor. I mean, I HATE 3.X.s imbalance. Any game system that pretends that a certain character is viable with others only for it to not be true has failed the player. These aren't necessarily bad examples...but again, not close to what a high-level caster is capable of conceptually. We haven't even gotten into high-level 3.X battles where people are fighting demon wizards who can fly, teleport anywhere at will, telekinetically lock you down, control your mind, and destroy your magic.. (Scroll down to the balor). Skill mastery or having a bear are not going to get you close enough to hurt this guy. And all of these guys, as currently written, have trouble dealing with flying enemies, which is a staple of the fantasy genre.

Meanwhile the cleric and the wizard are in that cloud chariot flying through the feywild to pick up hawt eladrin chicks for their party in the magnificent mansion.

Well my epic 3.X ranger had several high level tough mounts with simple skill checks. A 4E DM could possible allow the same.

But that was more of a support issue.
3E designers barely designed anything nonmagical for play over 10 in 3E. Feat and skill power capped out at level 6 or 8. And Epic play was a afterthought.

And it continued in 4E as well.

The problem was not power. It was support. D&D was always lopsided with tier support. Spells for 13+ characters...? sure. Feats for level 10+ characters? 3E nope. 4e sure but not many. Nonmagical support for level 6+?... Hahahaha! Wait 2 years sucker!

 

[Tovec]

Just got caught up so I apologize if some of my points have been covered.
[MENTION=40098]WarlockLord[/MENTION] I just want to say a few minor things.

First, "two sides" don't exist. WotC is trying to reach further back than 3.5 and 4e, and even if we just counted 3e and 4e we are looking at AT LEAST 5 different factions. (4e-essentials, 4e+essentials, 3e'rs, 3.5rs, PFers)

Second, THIS is your breaking point where you think WotC is going to fail to achieve their goal? Bounded accuracy? HP was mine, and there are countless other threads disputing countless other issues and bounded accuracy is what broke your back. Ignore the new issues with the material and ideas coming out of the WotC blogs weekly.

Third, (to me) it sounds like you are purposely trying to aggravate both sides (as you would see it). Both sides have issues certainly but you don't seem to be accurately portraying the true issues with either side. You aren't doing it for the 3e people who dislike 4e (nor the 4e who dislike 3e) OR what 4e hate about 4e and what 3e hate about 3e. So I don't know how that happens.

Sure the 'fly invalidates climbing' argument has been made before but if that is the only issue then there are solutions. One I have imposed is that using fly is a concentration check, which can be easily disrupted or discontinued entirely by a number of factors, including landing . That means that the wizard CAN blow a spell slot to scale a wall, or they can work with the party to climb it.

The real issue is one of BOUNDLESS power at higher levels, compared to lower levels. And that isn't really being discussed here at all. Instead we are talking about how different classes can destroy the wall, instead of climbing it. But if you need to be above it not beyond it then the blowing it up is actually counterproductive.

Tovec out, peace people - "Play what you like"

 

[WarlockLord]

Just got caught up so I apologize if some of my points have been covered.
[MENTION=40098]WarlockLord[/MENTION] I just want to say a few minor things.

First, "two sides" don't exist. WotC is trying to reach further back than 3.5 and 4e, and even if we just counted 3e and 4e we are looking at AT LEAST 5 different factions. (4e-essentials, 4e+essentials, 3e'rs, 3.5rs, PFers)

Second, THIS is your breaking point where you think WotC is going to fail to achieve their goal? Bounded accuracy? HP was mine, and there are countless other threads disputing countless other issues and bounded accuracy is what broke your back. Ignore the new issues with the material and ideas coming out of the WotC blogs weekly.

Third, (to me) it sounds like you are purposely trying to aggravate both sides (as you would see it). Both sides have issues certainly but you don't seem to be accurately portraying the true issues with either side. You aren't doing it for the 3e people who dislike 4e (nor the 4e who dislike 3e) OR what 4e hate about 4e and what 3e hate about 3e. So I don't know how that happens.

Sure the 'fly invalidates climbing' argument has been made before but if that is the only issue then there are solutions. One I have imposed is that using fly is a concentration check, which can be easily disrupted or discontinued entirely by a number of factors, including landing . That means that the wizard CAN blow a spell slot to scale a wall, or they can work with the party to climb it.

The real issue is one of BOUNDLESS power at higher levels, compared to lower levels. And that isn't really being discussed here at all. Instead we are talking about how different classes can destroy the wall, instead of climbing it. But if you need to be above it not beyond it then the blowing it up is actually counterproductive.

Tovec out, peace people - "Play what you like"

Either you're missing the point or I didn't make it clear. The divide is between people who want the wall as an actual challenge for everyone at every level (the 4e ALL MUST CLIMB philosophy) or people who believe the wall may as well go away and die when you hit level z (the 3e "we all have overland flight/boots of flying/air walk/wild shape). You seem to be on the wall is a challenge for everybody, as evinced by your desire to nerf flight so that ALL MUST CLIMB.

Is this more clear? The OP got a little rambly...

 

[Tovec]

Either you're missing the point or I didn't make it clear. The divide is between people who want the wall as an actual challenge for everyone at every level (the 4e ALL MUST CLIMB philosophy) or people who believe the wall may as well go away and die when you hit level z (the 3e "we all have overland flight/boots of flying/air walk/wild shape). You seem to be on the wall is a challenge for everybody, as evinced by your desire to nerf flight so that ALL MUST CLIMB.

Is this more clear? The OP got a little rambly...

I did get your point. Mine is still as I said.

1 - there are more than two sides.
2 - your breaking point is climbing a wall, seriously?
3 - I don't see a whole lot of people on either "side" making this the dividing issue.

I don't see it as the defining issue because there ARE very simple solutions either way. For people who want to remove the wall at a contest there is the "give everyone flying boots" route or the "make flying less appealing" route. Either way both sides are happy with very little work. AND it has very little to do with the game as a whole. Plus I find a lot of times the real issues are ones of power, balance, and (for me) HP.

Getting over the wall is a really small part of the game, and I'm sure I can be persuaded to take on a position or system I do not prefer in this regard as I don't honestly care how they get over the wall unless there is a reason to stop them or slow them down.

If you are making a different point, then that is unclear.

 

[Harlock]

I did get your point. Mine is still as I said.

1 - there are more than two sides.
2 - your breaking point is climbing a wall, seriously?
3 - I don't see a whole lot of people on either "side" making this the dividing issue.

I don't see it as the defining issue because there ARE very simple solutions either way. For people who want to remove the wall at a contest there is the "give everyone flying boots" route or the "make flying less appealing" route. Either way both sides are happy with very little work. AND it has very little to do with the game as a whole. Plus I find a lot of times the real issues are ones of power, balance, and (for me) HP.

Getting over the wall is a really small part of the game, and I'm sure I can be persuaded to take on a position or system I do not prefer in this regard as I don't honestly care how they get over the wall unless there is a reason to stop them or slow them down.

If you are making a different point, then that is unclear.

I believe the wall is a metaphor. I could be wrong. Maybe it's just a cigar?

 

[Fifth Element]

If that's true, WotC is shooting themselves in the foot. The real goal should be growing the fanbase.

Read "fanbase" to include potential new customers and we're good.

 

[Argyle King]

Is it odd that I find myself in a place where I do not identify with either of the two sides which the OP illustrated?

 

[WarlockLord]

Let me try again.

The wall is a metaphor for any challenge that would be a challenge at low level but is completely obviated by high levels. These include walls, doors, melee-only monsters, finding bad guys,etc.

In 3e, you don't give a crap about walls, doors, melee-only monsters, and so on, because each of these challenges have abilities that come online to completely bypass them. Walls and doors shut up when you have overland flight and ethereal jaunt. Melee only monsters go away when you can fly. Finding Osama bin Laden's cave becomes substantially easier when scrying comes online. Etc.

Meanwhile, the 4e paradigm is that no matter what level you are, there will always be a wall or a door or a melee monster or bin Laden's cave that will be an actual challenge you can fail at. Level 30 characters are supposed to struggle with the Wall of Texture Swapping, which has the exact same properties as the Cheap Wooden Wall but as a mysteriously higher DC.

In other words, in 3e, there are entire types of challenges which, when you reach a certain level, simply aren't challenging any more. In 4e, you will never reach the point where you can tell an entire set of challenges to go away.

And 5e seems to be embracing the 4e paradigm. See the Mearls quote. It doesn't matter how powerful of a psion you become, you are still making a strength check to get past that damn door.
[MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION], what is your position? I am genuinely curious.

 

[GX.Sigma]

[the entire OP]

The basis of your argument seems to be that there are two kinds of D&D players: players who like 3e, and players who like 4e. Aside from being a false dichotomy (as evinced by the OSR and others), that's a very poisonous way of thinking.

That sort of "editionism" is the real problem. It's a way of thinking that divides people into groups, and sets them as enemies against each other. While some gamers' tastes perfectly parallel their chosen edition, most don't:

I think the biggest thing we've found is that people's tastes don't generally follow the edition they may say they prefer.

Instead of thinking in terms of editions, think in terms of playstyles.

Edit:

Let me try again.

The wall is a metaphor for any challenge that would be a challenge at low level but is completely obviated by high levels. These include walls, doors, melee-only monsters, finding bad guys,etc.

In 3e, you don't give a crap about walls, doors, melee-only monsters, and so on, because each of these challenges have abilities that come online to completely bypass them. Walls and doors shut up when you have overland flight and ethereal jaunt. Melee only monsters go away when you can fly. Finding Osama bin Laden's cave becomes substantially easier when scrying comes online. Etc.

Meanwhile, the 4e paradigm is that no matter what level you are, there will always be a wall or a door or a melee monster or bin Laden's cave that will be an actual challenge you can fail at. Level 30 characters are supposed to struggle with the Wall of Texture Swapping, which has the exact same properties as the Cheap Wooden Wall but as a mysteriously higher DC.

In other words, in 3e, there are entire types of challenges which, when you reach a certain level, simply aren't challenging any more. In 4e, you will never reach the point where you can tell an entire set of challenges to go away.

And 5e seems to be embracing the 4e paradigm. See the Mearls quote. It doesn't matter how powerful of a psion you become, you are still making a strength check to get past that damn door.

What he's saying is that being a better psion does not automatically make you better at forcing down doors. What he's definitely not saying is that being a psion doesn't give you other ways to get past a door. (We already have charm and command in the playtest, and the adventure mentions knock.)

He's specifically saying they're going away from the 4e thing of having DCs scale at the same rate as bonuses. Just like in 3e, a door will always be a door. I don't know how you're interpreting that as being more like 4e than 3e.