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

[Lanefan]

I'd much prefer an approach which has a better sense of emergent gameplay and makes more of an effort to connect me to what's going on inside the game world rather than putting so much weight on level escalation and what characters of a particular level "should" be doing.

Sounds like 5e's flattened math might be just what you're looking for.

I also expect problems on the question as to whether DDN stretches 20 or 30 levels, whether combat and utility powers should be siloed, etc

I believe they've already stated that the 5e level range will be 1-20 by design.

Lanefan

 

[delericho]

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.

A couple of things:

1) If your 4e DM is regularly opposing your 30th level characters with "walls that must be climbed" as the challenges, you need a new DM - he's doing it wrong.

2) In 3e, this was all-too-frequently handled by outright blocking those built-in countermeasures. So, the challenge would end up taking place in a dead magic zone, or there would be some sort of backlash, or... (IOW, for those DMs who didn't want that category of challenges to "go away" then the game had built-in countermeasures.)

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

Unification is impossible because large numbers of players have jumped ship to Paizo, Paizo have earned a great deal of customer loyalty, and so those customers won't be back in any large numbers. Now, if WotC could persuade Paizo to drop Pathfinder in favour of 5e, things would be different, but Paizo would be insane to do that.

Unification is impossible because in order to attract old-school players, WotC will have to make changes to the game that 4e fans will hate, or will see as insulting, or... So they'll lose a part of their existing customer base and pick up some of the old-school players, but they'll not get unification, or close to it.

Unification is impossible because a large number of old-edition players are perfectly happy with their game of choice and won't even bother looking at 5e - in the worst cases, they'll see it as just another bloated WotC parody of the 'real' game.

Fortunately, while unification is a goal that WotC have publicly stated, the real goal is for 5e to do significantly better than 4e. Which is only almost impossible, not actually impossible. I still don't like their chances, but at least they do have a chance, however small.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

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.

4E does the same thing as 3e. 4e provides the GM with suitable DCs for challenges that are easy, moderate, or hard for characters of each level. If the Wall of Texture Swapping has the exact same properties as the Cheap Wooden Wall, it's not an easy, moderate, or hard challenge for epic level characters. It's simply not challenging anymore and the 4e characters automatically overcome it just like a 3e character would.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think I - as a 4E player - would have a problem with the Wizard flying over the wall. But you better don't require me to fly over it. I have a problem if the Knock and Find Traps spells make the Rogue's Thievery skills irrelevant, though. I wouldn't mind if it buffed him to incredible levels and the Wizard to levels comparable to that of a Thief - but not always better.

So I think this isn't such a big issue, and I don't think what you describe even would happen in 4E. There are ways to fly over the wall, or teleport around it, jump or climb over it, or phase through it. Players can all learn this, and they may not even need spells for some of it. But their epic level climb skill would probably also work.

I like the bounded accuracy concept as well, and it's the thing I think that would have been good for 4E.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

Can the editions be unified? No.

Can the people who play them be unified? That's the question.

 

[Argyle King]

Sounds like 5e's flattened math might be just what you're looking for.


Lanefan

Yes, but also no.

Yes in that I like the idea of a flatter math. I was very excited in the early stages of 5E.

No in that -for the time being- the math is currently being used (and progressed) in such a way that I am not entirely sure if I'm on board with the playstyle the edition is going for. I very much preferred the earlier discussions in which they explained how abilities were going to matter more. While that is true, there seem to have been some changes in philosophy as far as how to implement that idea in 5E, and I'm starting to view 5E negatively* because of it.

In a way, it's a sort of D&D Deja Vu for me because 4th Edition turned out similarly. I loved the Worlds & Monsters preview books. I also though many of the ideas discussed before 4E came out were great. Unfortunately, the final product implemented those ideas and went for a playstyle which I did not prefer. My impression from the playtest is that 5E is somewhat in the same boat.


*On second thought, I'd say it's more accurate to say I'm starting to view 5E with apathy. There is a mild dislike for some of the things (though I do like other aspects,) but -because other games I'm playing are delivering what I want- I'm starting to care less and less about whether or not I am part of 5E's target audience. (At this point in time, I do not feel I am part of 5E's target audience.)

 

[Leatherhead]

I don't think I - as a 4E player - would have a problem with the Wizard flying over the wall. But you better don't require me to fly over it. I have a problem if the Knock and Find Traps spells make the Rogue's Thievery skills irrelevant, though. I wouldn't mind if it buffed him to incredible levels and the Wizard to levels comparable to that of a Thief - but not always better.

Bold on the relevant part~

This is a thing that has been bothering me for quite some time.

I've seen people say this, but it really can't be that way. Opening a lock is a mostly binary challenge. You can either open the lock, or not open the lock. The only partial degree of success is "You can't open the lock, but you can still bash the lock open." And in most situations, that is effectively opening the lock, or effectively not opening the lock anyway.

Now, most non-combat challenges are set up as a binary, or effectively binary challenge. Can you get across the pit? Can you get past the wall? Can you make it to the church before the sacrifice? I'm sure you get the point.

The problem with binary challenges, is that they are pass/fail. I know it sounds like I am repeating myself at this point, but here comes the important part. If you have a handful of people that can be expected to solve a binary lockpicking challenge, then they are going to be completely interchangeable regardless of their methods, or individual competency at the subject. This is because the encounters are supposed to be balanced around the group having a way to get past the lock.

Here is the scenario:
There is a locked door, on the other side of the door is a pie, you must get the pie. The lock is of low quality (DC 15).
The contestants:
A master lockpicker blessed by the goddess of thievery. With a legendary +30 lockpicking score.
A wizard with a "knock spell" that gives +10 to lockpicking.
And a big dumb brute of a Fighter, with a -1 lockpicking score from being clumsy.

Now, the wizard, with their lowly "knock as a bonus to lockpicking" spell effectively makes the master lockpicker redundant. Heck, the Brute bashing down the door makes the master lockpicker redundant. There is no way around that other than setting the check so high that nobody other than the master lockpicker can open the lock. At which point the knock spell becomes useless, and anyone without a master lockpicker in their party is hosed over. Which is a very bad thing to have.

Thankfully, picking a lock is a very quick check in the metagame. If the challenge at hand is more time consuming at the table, it runs the risk of delving into the decker problem.

The solution to the problem of binary checks isn't to remove binary checks mind you. There are several situations where a binary check is logically and even thematically appropriate. A better solution is to remove the super-specialists who only contribute their one thing to the party.

 

[Aenghus]

I think this is as much a playstyle issue as an edition issue. There are so many variable factors involved,(players, referee, houserules, styles of play etc) that focussing on any one in isolation is difficult at best, and can be misleading at worst.

The optimum solution to typical problems would vary over levels in different ways in different versions of D&D, sometimes in emergent and perhaps counterintuitive ways.

In older editions I hated the tendency of high level modules to try and arbitrarily take away all the problematic high level abilities, and force the players to play like low level adventurers with inflated stats.

Designing good high level adventures is difficult, given the massive power variability of adventuring parties, especially in earlier editions.
One reason this happened is that high level abilities tended to easily break typical problems, and removing them made it easier on designers.

In the worst case it allowed a lazy designer to just level up a low level adventure with tougher monsters. I found such lazy design unsatisfactory.

I prefer high level abilities to be less broken, so such draconian tactics are just not needed, and the PCs are expected to draw on all their abilities to solve problems.

I find high level adventures always need to be tweaked and customised to take into account the power level, strengths and weaknesses of the party concerned. While I find this easier in 4e, which has less high level craziness(ie magic items and spells that negate entire subsets of problems), a flatter power curve and a smaller gap between unoptimised and optimised PCs, I find I always need to do this.

I thinked 4e's reduced need for player system mastery makes a simple approach to high level adventures more viable than in earlier editions, where system mastery could be leveraged to bypass entire sections of an adventure e.g. scry and fry tactics.

Partially it comes down to motivations - if a major point of playing is to enjoy the adventure in it's totality, ie exploration, skipping parts of the adventure is missing the point. If a major point of playing is to successfully achieve a list of goals, skipping entire chapters of the adventure can make sense if it more quickly achieves the goals, or reduces the risks of doing so.

 

[Mallus]

Can the people who play them be unified? That's the question.

That is the question!

I think the answer is an emphatic yes.

Because I've seen people with different play styles and system preferences all game happily at the same table for the past almost decade of continuous, face-to-face play.

(I've also seen people with different play styles and system preferences argue, ahem, spiritedly over the past almost decade of online discussion -- but hey, that's just the Internet).

 

[Nagol]

Bold on the relevant part~

This is a thing that has been bothering me for quite some time.

I've seen people say this, but it really can't be that way. Opening a lock is a mostly binary challenge. You can either open the lock, or not open the lock. The only partial degree of success is "You can't open the lock, but you can still bash the lock open." And in most situations, that is effectively opening the lock, or effectively not opening the lock anyway.

Part of that problem can be solved through changing the design of the challenge.

For example, my 3.5e game had a lost dwarven treasury. The lock mechanism contained 5 sets of pins -- in effect locks within a lock. Locks 2, 4, and 5 were the primary holding mechanisms. Locks 1 and 3 are triggers for a couple of sets of death traps as well as offering minimal resistance to opening the door. If they weren't opened, the traps didn't discharge and the door would resist being opened with a Strength DC 8 check.

A Rogue can use Search to detect the traps and skip the pin sets that trigger the traps whilst moving the important bits. Then almost anyone can force the door open and begin looting.

A Wizard can cast Knock and affect 2 of the 5 locks -- and deal with the consequences. So a Wizard can cast Knock up to 3 times and deal with 2 sets of death traps as an alternative, but definitely not preferable, tactic.