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

[billd91]

Ahah. So, you think Fighters should play like the heroes in Greek tragedies and epics?

If you're just going to be argumentative, why participate in the thread? Why would you assume that a poster, using an example from Greek myth of a character wounding a goddess, means he thinks fighters should play like heroes in Greek tragedies and epics? Most of whom, I might add, don't fling mountains around.

 

[B.T.]

Ahah. So, you think Fighters should play like the heroes in Greek tragedies and epics?

Looks like I just activated your trap card.

No, I think fighters should be like D&D fighters.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If you're just going to be argumentative,

I'm not. That's your own bias talking.

Why would you assume that a poster, using an example from Greek myth of a character wounding a goddess, means he thinks fighters should play like heroes in Greek tragedies and epics?

I'm not. I'm asking a question. That's why there's a question mark there.

Personally, I'd love it if Fighters could play like the top-line Greek warriors; I'm attempting to suss out whether or not BT feels the same way.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Looks like I just activated your trap card.

Gosh, that show is terrible. And no, it's not a trap card, it's just a question.

No, I think fighters should be like D&D fighters.

Okay. So what does the example of Diomedes wounding* Aphrodite tell us?

* Non-fatally, on the arm, a particularly pacifistic goddess.

 

[bert1000]

I still don't know where you are getting this from. There is no page in the PHB or DMG for 4e that says epic level PCs must break through doors, or climb walls.

But if they do break through doors, they'll probably be the gates of Hell. If they do climb walls, they'll probably be the Pillars of Creation (in The Plane Below). And I don't see how that's a problem, or in any way genre breaking. Likewise melee combat: Thor and Hercules fought plenty of melee combats.

I guess I don't really get your notion of "entire set of challenges" - if that is specified in genre terms, than 4e tells an entire set of challenges to go away - hobgoblins won't trouble epic PCs, for example - but if you are defining this functionally, then I don't see why it should be the case. Why shouldn't the gates of Hell be hard for even demigods to make their way through?

Double this. Sometimes these forums become too much like U.S. politics -- people on both sides putting up strawman arguments and feeling good about destroying positions that no one really had to begin with!


I think all 4e did was to say -- if you put something in front of PCs that should be be a challenge, use these DCs as a guide. If it isn't a sufficient challenge, then just let the PCs succeed and move on. Or better yet, don't spend any game time on that element period.

I do think 4e could have developed higher level play much better. I'm defintiely a fan of some kind of domain management as you get into higher levels, as well as getting involved in more gonzo time travel, plane hopping, etc. Why not? You have tons of levels already for more mundane play.

 

[Warbringer]

If WotC manages to capture 15% of each group, it will be far and away the most played D&D .

35% , lees than that, abandon 5 e

 

[Nagol]

Gosh, that show is terrible. And no, it's not a trap card, it's just a question.



Okay. So what does the example of Diomedes wounding* Aphrodite tell us?

* Non-fatally, on the arm, a particularly pacifistic goddess.

To be fair to the myth, he also casts a spear into Ares' stomach -- a particularly non-pacifistic god.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

To be fair to the myth, he also casts a spear into Ares' stomach -- a particularly non-pacifistic god.

I'm pretty sure he had Athena's help there, for what little it matters.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=95493]Tovec[/MENTION]
Brief aside, but just wanted to point out that ELH content was updated and rereleased through the 3.5 SRD; thus epic Balance is a 3.5 rule.

Thanks though.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

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

.....

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

I think your fixated on the wrong detail with respect to the DC examples.

One of the issues with 4th edition is that weak monsters lost utility too quickly due to the rate at which the attack bonus and armour class values increased. This also affected skill DC's and it made it tricky to adapt certain background elements in any given adventure. The fix to this is presumably a reduction in the rate at which a characters power will increase.

That in turn created a situation where things that ought to be a bit more mundane had to be amped up to stay balanced for the current party level. If the DM wants to use a mundane iron bound door as a non trivial obstacle for paragon level characters, he is wasting his time. If he is using an adamantine door, its kind of putting too much adamantine stuff out into the world. Even for a game with the mechanical emphasis of 4th Edition, that will cause logistical problems.

Now, as for believing that past a certain point in character power advancements, mere doors and walls should not be an obstacle worth considering, that is a valid point of view. However, that is also something that needs to be determined by a DM. Prior to 4th edition, I liked to run combats with large numbers of Orcs and Goblins at higher levels. Other DM's prefered to use just one or two larger and more dangerous monsters. Neither approach is wrong, but each approach will affect what sort of gear and splatbooks the DM lets into his game. The game is then run accordingly. The same thing applies to walls and doors.

Some DMs do not mind the escalating arms race that certain players can introduce. If Bob the Powergamer wants to do Scry / Buff / Teleport / Murder tactics, the DM can start using NPC's that use contingency spells tied to 'an enemy teleports into my general area' to trigger an anti-magic shell with a 10 foot radius surrounded by a wall of force with a radius of 10 foot + 1 inch. Or do whatever else the DM wants. Other DM's may want to at least have the option of having a in game plausible explanation for why Goblins have not been totally annihilated by adventurers.

The scope and power of the players in any game of any edition of D&D is ultimately determined by what the DM is willing to tolerate and run. I expect that the ultimate goal of 5th edition is to allow both types of games to be run within the same system of rules. There is no reason why the power level you expect of a high level game wont be possible in 5th edition. At worst, it may not be possible out of the box and require an additional rules module or two.

END COMMUNICATION