D&D 5E Weighing in on 5e

[delericho]

Meh. Semantics. There was additional source material added between '74 and '77 like the blue book. And the parallel line was merely a watered down version of the more advanced game.

The differences between BD&D and AD&D were more significant than those between 1st and 2nd Edition. The use of race-as-class and the lack of multiclassing almost ensure that by themselves, but then there are a huge stack of minor differences (ACs descending from 9 instead of 10, lack of multiple attacks for high level Fighters, myriad spell changes, etc).

If you're going to count 1st and 2nd as different and 3.0e and 3.5e as different, you have to count BD&D as different. Otherwise you're just cherry picking the versions you like to strengthen your point.

If you want to nitpick minor additional optional sourcebooks as new versions, I cannot stop you. But, it is the flaw in your argument. They do not equate to a release of a full blown version.

As I said, it's arguable.

I don't consider Essentials to be a revamp, but I do consider 3.5 to be a partial one since it had so many changes.

Your initial list included 4e and Essentials as separate entries. I was responding to that.

People could still play the core edition and still find support and new product out for it until the next version came out.

Actually, several of the 1st Edition books remained in print well into the 2nd Edition era. Likewise, many of the 3.0e books remained available into the 3.5e era (and were at least 90% compatible). They didn't produce new edition after the revision, of course, because that would be insane.

And many groups used the 1st and 2nd edition books interchangeably. Indeed, many used everything from OD&D through 2nd, including the BD&D line, interchangeably.

People didn't really complain when 2E or 3E came out,

This is incorrect. The first Dragons I got were from right around the time of the 1st -> 2nd switch, and the Forum section of those magazines is full of complaints about the new edition. Likewise, when 3e was announced, there were long

 

[delericho]

While I'm at it, I'm really sick of the complaints that Wizards doesn't listen to its real fans, aka you and the particular people who agree with you. The people who complain on forums make up about one percent of the fan base, and that's being generous. I can guarantee you that Wizards thoroughly market tests every book they release.

I think you credit them with a lot greater resources than they actually have. WotC have a better understanding of the shape of their market than just about anyone else (Paizo might rival them), but there's much more that they don't know than that they do.

If Wizards makes a major decision, they did it because that's what the majority of the market asked for.

Again, I doubt this is the case. Otherwise, there would be no point in hiring experts (Mearls and Cook) - they could hire any marginally competent designers and have them just follow any trends.

Additionally, since their books take at least a year to develop, their ability to actually react to the market is extremely limited. They're driving a Star Destroyer, not the Millennium Falcon.

Since 4e was released, Wizards hasn't made any truly bad decisions.

Well, other than pulling PDF sales to combat piracy (which it didn't). Or replacing the offline Character Builder with an online version that took more than a year to get back to being almost as good. Or replacing the offline Monster Builder with an online version that has only just gained the ability to actually build monsters (and that incorrectly).

And that doesn't even include minor things like the one and only in-print Dark Sun adventure featuring a map with creatures that don't exist on Dark Sun or an end treasure that would completely negate a core concept of the setting...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Meh. Semantics. There was additional source material added between '74 and '77 like the blue book. And the parallel line was merely a watered down version of the more advanced game.



If you want to nitpick minor additional optional sourcebooks as new versions, I cannot stop you. But, it is the flaw in your argument. They do not equate to a release of a full blown version.

I don't consider Essentials to be a revamp, but I do consider 3.5 to be a partial one since it had so many changes.

In reality, there is original, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3.5, and 4E. When these versions came out, edition support for earlier releases diminished. Those other optional rules and boxed sets that you mention did not remove edition support from TSR/WotC for the main editions, so they are white noise.

People could still play the core edition and still find support and new product out for it until the next version came out. People didn't really complain when 2E or 3E came out, but 3.5 and 4E came out so quickly after earlier editions that many people did complain because earlier edition support dried up.

Yeah, I agree. I can confirm this with my experience as well. I actually had a couple of characters that were rolled up under 0e, played in 1e, played more in 2e, without any really significant modifications at all. Everything prior to 3e was really quite frankly one system for all intents and purposes. If you sat down at any table running any pre-3e version of the game (barring extensive house ruling) you pretty much knew the game. Worst case you'd have a few new options around the edges and a couple of numbers changed SLIGHTLY. Even going between Basic and late 2e wasn't a big deal, your elf was just called 'fighter/magic-user', big deal really.

In other words the game was really pretty close to entirely stable for 25 years. I'd note this though. The original 'prototype' version of the game only survived for 3-4 years. I think the roll from 3e to 3.5 is similar. Whole new game in many respects, simply couldn't be pegged exactly on the first try.

What WotC needs to do is NOT do radical things. Spend the next 5 years putting out a product that is 4e compatible, cleans up some of the issues around the edges, maybe offers some optional replacement rules modules, like a whole alternate set of feats for instance, a set of character classes/power sources built around more generalized lists of powers, etc. These can still be MOSTLY 4e compatible and as 'player option' or 'DM option' books you don't have to feel compelled to use them. The core rules can remain in force and existing adventures, monsters, etc will remain valid and usable. At the same time people can really get into sorting out what exactly they want and SLOWLY build a consensus around a next direction. Then in say 2014 they can rework the core rules to deal with issues that can't really be eliminated any other way and do some incompatible things, with say a 2015 release. This would represent a transition a BIT more abrupt than 1e -> 2e, but the game would still be recognizably the direct lineal descendant of 4e and not some entirely new experiment that itself will fail to work well enough to last more than 3-4 years.

Yes, WotC is thus going to have to put up with bitching about 4e for a few more years, but they made that bed and they just have to sleep in it. I think over time, especially with well enough crafted options and some clean up around the edges that 4e will prove to be pretty well loved by a good chunk of the community, heck, it already is. Dusting those people and taking yet another violent turn in some other direction (and worst of all backwards) would simply be the end of the product line IMHO. I know I have no intention of buying new books any time in the next 5 years. Especially of another completely different game branded 'D&D' out of some misbegotten notion that the current one isn't a good game.

 

[Argyle King]

[sarcasm] Just for the sake of change, let's ditch the d20. Let's roll a set of dice consisting of a d12 and a d8 instead. [/sarcasm]



More serious response: Consult my ideas on using the disease track for more things which I spoke of in the Monte Cook thread.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

While I'm at it, I'm really sick of the complaints that Wizards doesn't listen to its real fans, aka you and the particular people who agree with you. The people who complain on forums make up about one percent of the fan base, and that's being generous. I can guarantee you that Wizards thoroughly market tests every book they release. If Wizards makes a major decision, they did it because that's what the majority of the market asked for. Since 4e was released, Wizards hasn't made any truly bad decisions. The way they handled Essentials wasn't perfect, but they did it because that's what people asked for, a version of D&D that was more similar to 3.5 and more accessible to new players. If Wizards isn't doing what you want, stop complaining and go make your own RPG that's exactly the way you like it.

As for the ascending math, when 4th edition first released, I questioned the point of the +1 per 2 levels bonus. If the players had it, and the monsters had it, it just cancels out. But that assumes players only face monsters that are their own level. What if the DM is running an open-world game, and the players have a choice of fighting goblins or demons? There has to be some mechanical indication that the demons are going to be a harder fight than the goblins.

If it really bothers you, there's an easy fix. Get rid of the +1 per 2 level bonus. Ban all feats that provide a flat bonus to attacks, defense, or skills. Equipment still have their special abilities but do not give a bonus to attack or defense. Then for every monster, subtract a value equal to the party level from their attacks and defenses. You will end up with something that is mechanically identical to 4e but with smaller numbers.

Actually you have to remove an additional 1-3 numbers on all monster defenses per tier, otherwise they're completely unhittable. Removing the enhancement bonuses from magical items is also necessary for reasons stated before. And while I am considering a change like that I think it's good to have at least someone poke at the designers with the request.

 

[Kzach]

I'd go the opposite way, feats are purely for combat optimization and improvement. I'd then cut down the number of feats a PC gets, and then introduce Talents, a purely non-combat character customization system that works with skills.

This only serves to increase the problem of optimisation.

The disparity between a well-made striker and a piss-poor striker is quite large, and it is mostly based on feat choices. Other elements come into play, of course, but none have as big an impact on the overall effectiveness and power of the character as feats do.

So why have it in the system? Why create such a problem when the simple fix is not to provide the tools for the problem in the first place? By eliminating all damage and defence increases from feats, you almost entirely eradicate the optimisation issue from the game. Power creep becomes almost a non-issue and class balance becomes almost trivial to maintain across the entire system.

What's even better is that you actually increase the diversity of characters by doing this because feats become solely about customising your character to whatever you think is cool and fun rather than keeping up with the Jones's.

Now sure, you can already ignore all the feat taxes and damage boosts and defence boost feats and focus purely on customisation choices, but that's where the problem of optimisation kicks in because you then have a huge disparity between optimised and non-optimised characters. Not only that, but the system becomes reliant on balancing around the optimised end of the spectrum (and please, this issue has been laid to rest by WotC admitting feat taxes so it's not even up for debate anymore), so that players who don't optimise suffer.

I hear a lot of people say that they play in games where optimisation isn't an issue and feat taxes are irrelevant. And yet I see the same people then go on to complain about how 4e combat is too long and grindy and about all their TPK's using the rules as written. If WotC has the power to balance the system from the very beginning and not create a situation where there is such a disparity that has to be subsequently balanced around, then why not do that and make character customisation about making the character more interesting and versatile rather than just having bigger numbers?

 

[Grydan]

By eliminating all damage and defence increases from feats, you almost entirely eradicate the optimisation issue from the game.

Really?

I don't think so.

Power selection, multi-class feats, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies and magic item selection all play roles at least as large in the optimization game, some of them larger.

 

[mudlock]

You should have just stopped at "No feats", period (instead of "...that give a static blah blah".)

Powers (and class features) are just a better way of doing the same thing; just, rather than getting them at levels 1,2,3, 5,6,7, and 10, make sure everyone get one at every level.

 

[Kzach]

Really?

Yes, really.

Power selection, multi-class feats, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies and magic item selection all play roles at least as large in the optimization game, some of them larger.

Firstly, let's ignore that you included multi-class FEATS in your argument that feats have less to do with balance issues than other factors and focus on the rest of your list.

Name one option that uses powers, paragon path abilities and powers, epic destinies and magical item selection combined that is overpowered.

And don't include the use of any feats in your example.

 

[Argyle King]

Yes, really.


Firstly, let's ignore that you included multi-class FEATS in your argument that feats have less to do with balance issues than other factors and focus on the rest of your list.

Name one option that uses powers, paragon path abilities and powers, epic destinies and magical item selection combined that is overpowered.

And don't include the use of any feats in your example.

dimensional shackles