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

[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.