Encounter balance is optional, and the game can often be a lot more fun and more interesting if you broadly ignore it.
Within the party though, I think it is somewhat of a valid concern for people to want to be able to meaningfully contribute. I mean if someone plays a Fighter or something, they might expect to be able to contribute to the mechanical side of the game for ages, and not just be Xander to the Caster's Buffy. (Willow would have worked better there but then I need to clarify "late seasons Willow.")
I've played games with in built imbalances, but they are made explicitly clear to the players at character creation, allowing people to CHOOSE to play a weaker or more limited character if that is what they want. Some of these games also compensate the weaker archetypes with other non mechanical benefits. In In Nomine for example, the default assumption is that players are either Angels or Demons who are in a struggle for the souls of humankind. They are extremely powerful compared to all other options, but their mindset and outlook is pretty fixed and limited and they are punished if they act outside of it.
Other options include:
"Tripped" angels and renegade Demons - similar power levels but very limited "support structure" and still bound by the mindset.
Human Soldiers - better than an average human, but not nearly as powerful as an angel or a demon, but benefits from being part of the world rather than an outsider and having absolute free will (big deal in the setting)
Undead - Tougher humans that retain the free will aspect at the cost of picking up some kicker (need to drink blood is a classic but it could be anything) and don't fit into society properly any more.
Ethereal Spirits - total wildcards. Can be more powerful than demons or angels in certain situations, but massively weaker in others.
In Nomine is one of my favourite role playing games, and it does this imbalanced group thing extremely well, and it really is useful for getting people to think differently about characters in these sorts of games. But the rules explicitly tell you that Angel or Demon is the most mechanically powerful choice, and that these others will be weaker. There is no attempt to balance, and this is made explicitly clear. I think it is good design if a game is going to have imbalanced classes to point it out, because otherwise people have unrealistic expectations going in.
In all sincerity, I understand the difficulty of imagining a game not intended to be played "by its rules." This is because it was so difficuly for me when I first started to think about Basic and similar games. The best way I have been able to explain it is by suggesting a distinction in perspective:
(a) determinative -- this is what we are used to; follow the rules to play the game
(b) interpretive -- this is what we are no longer used to; the key here is a game is played with rulings rather than rules
Balance is not, honestly cannot be, a goal of the interpretive perspective simply because there is no quantifiable "power" in the mechanics to balance. Unlike in a game conceived of from the determinative perspective, where "power" in the game is a creature of the mechanics, any "power" in an interpretive game comes exclusively from beyond the mechanics. And the mechanics themselves are just suggestions that (and this is crucial) require further interpretation by the players.
Yes to the tool kit comment. I would say a bit more: it was also a mind set. Newer versions also entail a mind set. The trouble is, the two are radically different and so deeply ingrained as to be generally assumed by most people. That is why so many people (including myself at one point) look at Basic -- especially compared to the hundreds of pages and "core mechanics" in newer editions -- and think, well, this is just an incomplete game.
Manchu wrote: Yes to the tool kit comment. I would say a bit more: it was also a mind set. Newer versions also entail a mind set. The trouble is, the two are radically different and so deeply ingrained as to be generally assumed by most people. That is why so many people (including myself at one point) look at Basic -- especially compared to the hundreds of pages and "core mechanics" in newer editions -- and think, well, this is just an incomplete game.
I learned to play out of the old red box basic books. Two 30 page booklets, one for players, one for DMs. It was everything you needed to get through 3rd level, and included a solo adventure and a party adventure. games do not need to be complicated to allow for role playing.
I guess it depends on how you define roleplaying. There are folks very heavily invested into the determinitive viewpoint who would say you need plenty of "options" in order to have a meaningful character. They're not wrong, from their own perspective. I just try to explain that D&D has not always been a function of that perspective.
I don't disagree with that. But I also think more options doesn't negate the way you want to play (which is also broadly my prefered method these days. All those mechanics to "allow" me to play my concept? Nah, I'm good. )
Manchu wrote: In all sincerity, I understand the difficulty of imagining a game not intended to be played "by its rules." This is because it was so difficuly for me when I first started to think about Basic and similar games. The best way I have been able to explain it is by suggesting a distinction in perspective:
(a) determinative -- this is what we are used to; follow the rules to play the game
(b) interpretive -- this is what we are no longer used to; the key here is a game is played with rulings rather than rules
Balance is not, honestly cannot be, a goal of the interpretive perspective simply because there is no quantifiable "power" in the mechanics to balance. Unlike in a game conceived of from the determinative perspective, where "power" in the game is a creature of the mechanics, any "power" in an interpretive game comes exclusively from beyond the mechanics. And the mechanics themselves are just suggestions that (and this is crucial) require further interpretation by the players.
It's fine to play loose more and freeform, with whatever system you're using.
If something boils down to "Freeform with some guidence" that's plenty of fun too and is basically how this post is reading to me. I'm just not sure it's particularly meaningful to chalk up the results of the Freeform part of the equation up too much to the parts that are offering the guidance. The merits of what you can do in the absence of tight rules definitions aren't a virtue of what rules do exist in that lighter framework.
I've very played engaging games where each player has little more than a broad character concept a single d10 and the GMs whims to determine what happens. I'm not sure there is much value in trying to assign too much of what happened in that play experience to the d10.
EDIT: In contrast, there is probably a fair amount of value in looking at how much of a particularly good or bad play experience is derived from the rules when using a stricter and more granularly defined ruleset.
Da Boss wrote: I also think more options doesn't negate the way you want to play
To be clear, I like all editions of D&D. I have been reading a lot of 4E lately and conniving schemes to get my group to play at least one session. I don't want one or the other when it comes to D&D; give me all of them!
Chongara wrote: The merits of what you can do in the absence of tight rules definitions aren't a virtue of what rules do exist in that lighter framework.
This is exactly the same argument I once made on the topic. I also asked, how can you praise absence? How can you say the rules that aren't there are so good? Trouble is, these questions are posed from the rules-inured deterministic mindset. Basic is not a great game because of all the rules it doesn't have; it's a great game because it is designed to be ruled on by the players.
We were getting 3.5/PF guys to play 2E, and even though we explained some of the fundamental differences in approach it didn't seem to change the approach taken to monsters in the world. We ran across a dragon scouring a cavern looking for something. Instead of sneaking by and continuing on the 3.5 guys assumed we could take it, because why else would it be there right? I didn't engage and ran for a hiding spot, yet still barely survived as the dragon chased me after killing everyone else. Good times.
Da Boss wrote: I also think more options doesn't negate the way you want to play
To be clear, I like all editions of D&D. I have been reading a lot of 4E lately and conniving schemes to get my group to play at least one session. I don't want one or the other when it comes to D&D; give me all of them!
Chongara wrote: The merits of what you can do in the absence of tight rules definitions aren't a virtue of what rules do exist in that lighter framework.
This is exactly the same argument I once made on the topic. I also asked, how can you praise absence? How can you say the rules that aren't there are so good? Trouble is, these questions are posed from the rules-inured deterministic mindset. Basic is not a great game because of all the rules it doesn't have; it's a great game because it is designed to be ruled on by the players.
To me, your statement is reading basically as "I enjoyed the greater freedom more easily afforded by rules light systems". Would you characterize this interpretation as correct? It feels like you're inventing a lot of terminology here to describe simple differences in game types.
Ahtman wrote: Instead of sneaking by and continuing on the 3.5 guys assumed we could take it, because why else would it be there right? I didn't engage and ran for a hiding spot, yet still barely survived as the dragon chased me after killing everyone else. Good times.
Edit: Forgot to note we were level 2, on average.
That's a difference in campaign style. I'm assuming their previous DMs and such never put a 'run away' encounter in front of them and only used appropriate leveled encounters.
Funny as hell though.
My 'completely unprepared for things story' was a TPK when the players had zero silver items in a 3.0 campaign. One were-rat = bad news if you don't have silver. With 3.0 DRs, you pretty much had to have a silver, cold-iron, etc dagger in the party, just in case.
Ahtman wrote: Instead of sneaking by and continuing on the 3.5 guys assumed we could take it, because why else would it be there right?
Yes, exactly, it's moments like that where it becomes clear that these perspectives are hugely different.
pretre wrote: only used appropriate leveled encounters
TBF, someone DMing 3.5 or 4E would not be wrong to do so. That's what the game seems to encourage. If anything, I think it is only fair that players of those editions expect as much.
Alpharius wrote: Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?
No.
But some players think that a DM wouldn't put a monster in front of them unless they could beat it.
Chongara wrote: To me, your statement is reading basically as "I enjoyed the greater freedom more easily afforded by rules light systems". Would you characterize this interpretation as correct? It feels like you're inventing a lot of terminology here to describe simple differences in game types.
It feels to me that you are too committed to preconceived notions to imagine there is a reality beyond them. I'm balancing the frustration of my inability to open your mind against sympathy for your position, having stood there myself. Perhaps this is the best way to start again: would you agree that there is a difference between a rule and a ruling?
Alpharius wrote: Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?
Yes. There are dragons "balanced" to be slain by low-level parties. Starter Set adventures often end this way, usually some poor Young/Juvenile White Dragon is the victim.
Alpharius wrote: Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?
Depends how interested the dragon is in them. In addition to being giant killer lizard monsters non-juveni, 3.5-era adult sized++ dragons are powerful arcane spell casters. The only way you're going to survive is by being beneath the critters notice. Which to be fair you're probably still going to be, even in the case you go running at it with your 2nd level asses screaming, sword raised.
Alpharius wrote: Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?
No.
But some players think that a DM wouldn't put a monster in front of them unless they could beat it.
Ah, I gotcha now!
Yeah, that mindset seems to have disappeared somewhere between 2E and 3E - that some encounters are best avoided!
There aren't a lot of 'save or die' rolls anymore either, are there?
Alpharius wrote: Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?
No.
But some players think that a DM wouldn't put a monster in front of them unless they could beat it.
Ah, I gotcha now!
Yeah, that mindset seems to have disappeared somewhere between 2E and 3E - that some encounters are best avoided!
There aren't a lot of 'save or die' rolls anymore either, are there?
3.5 is filled to the brim with these. Hell, a lot of stuff basically qualifies as "No save, just die - or lose, at any rate".
Alpharius wrote: Yeah, that mindset seems to have disappeared somewhere between 2E and 3E - that some encounters are best avoided!
First, yes, low-level characters can handle dragons in 3E and 4E. Second, the idea that you only come across stuff you can handle is at least implicitly basic tenant of those same editions. Monsters have "challenge ratings." Fights have "encounter levels." While the DMGs advise that you can dial up or down the danger, they advise against making things too easy or impossible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alpharius wrote: There aren't a lot of 'save or die' rolls anymore either, are there?
Save or Die gets a bad rap. It originated as an act of mercy: something has happened to you so heinous that you would just die BUT you get a chance not to. People stuck in the "modern perspective" can only imagine Save Or Die is a way DM's "cheat," some extension of DM "fiat," another bogeyman of earlier editions.
Alpharius wrote: Yeah, that mindset seems to have disappeared somewhere between 2E and 3E - that some encounters are best avoided!
First, yes, low-level characters can handle dragons in 3E and 4E.
I think Alpharius meant 'real dragons'. He even said not young ones. The ones that low levels can handle in 3E/4E are young below level 10 or so.
White Dragons (lowest CR types) for example in 3E
Spoiler:
Challenge Rating: Wyrmling 2; very young 3; young 4; juvenile 6; young adult 8; adult 10; mature adult 12; old 15; very old 17; ancient 18; wyrm 19; great wyrm 21
Alpharius wrote: Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?
Yes. There are dragons "balanced" to be slain by low-level parties. Starter Set adventures often end this way, usually some poor Young/Juvenile White Dragon is the victim.
Alpharius wrote: There aren't a lot of 'save or die' rolls anymore either, are there?
Save or Die gets a bad rap. It originated as an act of mercy: something has happened to you so heinous that you would just die BUT you get a chance not to. People stuck in the "modern perspective" can only imagine Save Or Die is a way DM's "cheat," some extension of DM "fiat," another bogeyman of earlier editions.
I think the underlined part is a bit over the top. You can dislike SoD for reasons beyond those. There are ways for heinous things to happen without putting it all on one dice roll. SoD basically makes high-level D&D a game of 'don't roll a 1'.
Alpharius wrote: Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?
Yes. There are dragons "balanced" to be slain by low-level parties. Starter Set adventures often end this way, usually some poor Young/Juvenile White Dragon is the victim.
I believe the "CR" is even lower in 4E.
Spoiler:
Black Dragon Wyrmling - Level 2 Elite (Elite means as powerful as 2 standard monsters of the same level)
Young Black Dragon - Level 4 Solo (Solo means as powerful as 5 standard monsters of the same level)
Adult Black Dragon - Level 11 Solo
Elder Black Dragon - Level 18 Solo
Ancient Black Dragon - Level 26 Solo
So again... Level 10 or so before you get to 'real' dragons.
Save or Die gets a bad rap. It originated as an act of mercy: something has happened to you so heinous that you would just die BUT you get a chance not to. People stuck in the "modern perspective" can only imagine Save Or Die is a way DM's "cheat," some extension of DM "fiat," another bogeyman of earlier editions.
Having spent a lot, and I mean a lot of time in discussion groups around the 3.5/Pathfinder-ish style D&D I've literally never heard Save-or-Dies described in this terms. Like out of the 100s of hours I've spent talking about the game, and probably at least a few dozen talking about save-or-dies specifically this is the first time I've ever seen them described as even anything even vaguely like a "DM Cheat".
EDIT: "DM Cheat" is also kind of a silly term. I mean I've heard that kind of terminology kind of haphazardly thrown around by people who don't like house rules and the sort, but never against basic underlying mechanics.
EDIT: (Again) It's also odd to see a response to "GM Fiat" being framed as a "boogeyman" rather than a a basic tool. I've never really run into any but a handful of the most extreme bearded-of-necks approach it like that.
Honestly, a lot(but not all) of the problem with quadratic wizard, linear fighter can be solved with a strict enforcement of the rules for spell casting.
"So sorry, we don't even know where you can FIND pixies, much less buy pixie dust. You might try roaming the forest..."
"Nope, we don't have any black diamonds worth over 1,000 gold. I hear there might be one in the bottom of that twelve layer dungeon outside the castle. Good luck, friend."
"Twigs and berries?! What does this look like, a shrubbery?!"
"Uh oh, you only go seven hours and fifty-nine minutes of sleep? Guess you'll have to work with what you had left over from yesterday."
There isn't much that a fighter needs to swing a swing other than to have arms and be standing.
pretre wrote: So again... Level 10 or so before you get to 'real' dragons.
Great example of how in 3.5/4E you only fight what you can handle. So higher-level characters fight higher-level dragons. Lower-level characters fight lower-level dragons.
Sinful Hero wrote: Honestly, a lot(but not all) of the problem with quadratic wizard, linear fighter can be solved with a strict enforcement of the rules for spell casting.
"So sorry, we don't even know where you can FIND pixies, much less buy pixie dust. You might try roaming the forest..."
"Nope, we don't have any black diamonds worth over 1,000 gold. I hear there might be one in the bottom of that twelve layer dungeon outside the castle. Good luck, friend."
"Twigs and berries?! What does this look like, a shrubbery?!"
"Uh oh, you only go seven hours and fifty-nine minutes of sleep? Guess you'll have to work with what you had left over from yesterday."
That's pretty much the heavily implied approach in 2nd edition, which still at least pretended to treat magic as something difficult and esoteric.
The problem is that it really requires a DM to do a lot of bookkeeping and straight up overriiding.
OTOH, it's a lot of fun to carry out side quests for rare spell components and the like.
pretre wrote: So again... Level 10 or so before you get to 'real' dragons.
Great example of how in 3.5/4E you only fight what you can handle. So higher-level characters fight higher-level dragons. Lower-level characters fight lower-level dragons.
What? We were answering Alpharius' question about whether you would fight a real dragon at low levels in 3E. You were disputing that.
And I go back to my original statement, those player's problem had nothing to do with system and everything to do with their expectations based on previous DMs.
pretre wrote: And I go back to my original statement, those player's problem had nothing to do with system and everything to do with their expectations based on previous DMs.
No, it was the system that taught them that all encounters are there to be beaten by them, and only a bad DM would make put something in their way they couldn't beat. They even said that after dieing. Well, not the system part, but that they felt that there shouldn't be things they can't beat that they run into. The DM tried explaining that they could have gone around it or found a different approach but they didn't think it was right to put something in the story they couldn't fight. It wasn't just one person either, but four, though one of them had sort of a 'eh' attitude toward the.
Ahtman wrote: In 1st and 2nd Wizards also took longer to level.
they also didn't automatically learn spells (there was a chance of failure to learn), and they needed to acquire a spell book with the spell tehy wanted.
The latter was the real way to temper wizards: simply only give them access to certain spells.
One fix my group used in 2nd edition was to give mages the "Field Wizard" rule. They got a bonus spell per level that could only be used on certain utility type spells, but in return they coud only memorize each spell one time. It made wizards more able to do magic, but limited their ability to dominate combat. (oh, and nobody could learn both Fireball and Lightning Bolt).
Right, and no part of that article disputes the fact that high level combats come down to 'don't roll a 1'.
Well, except for the part that SoD only applies when characters do something stupidly reckless.
So yes, high level characters directly charging a Medusa need to "not roll a 1." Or they could actually do some adventuring, and avoid the effect entirely.
pretre wrote: And I go back to my original statement, those player's problem had nothing to do with system and everything to do with their expectations based on previous DMs.
No, it was the system that taught them that all encounters are there to be beaten by them, and only a bad DM would make put something in their way they couldn't beat. They even said that after dieing. Well, not the system part, but that they felt that there shouldn't be things they can't beat that they run into. The DM tried explaining that they could have gone around it or found a different approach but they didn't think it was right to put something in the story they couldn't fight. It wasn't just one person either, but four, though one of them had sort of a 'eh' attitude toward the.
2nd edition had explicit rules for parley and running away. Hell, Munchkin has a mechanic for avoiding combat.
pretre wrote: And I go back to my original statement, those player's problem had nothing to do with system and everything to do with their expectations based on previous DMs.
No, it was the system that taught them that all encounters are there to be beaten by them, and only a bad DM would make put something in their way they couldn't beat. They even said that after dieing. Well, not the system part, but that they felt that there shouldn't be things they can't beat that they run into. The DM tried explaining that they could have gone around it or found a different approach but they didn't think it was right to put something in the story they couldn't fight. It wasn't just one person either, but four, though one of them had sort of a 'eh' attitude toward the.
Then that's some dumb players. All D&D's, even with Challenge ratings, never said that you would always win a fight or that you should always win a fight. There were always times you might need to run away. Blaming it on the system is silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Well, except for the part that SoD only applies when characters do something stupidly reckless.
So yes, high level characters directly charging a Medusa need to "not roll a 1." Or they could actually do some adventuring, and avoid the effect entirely.
Charge a Medusa, Fight a Beholder, Fight a Balor, Fight a Wizard. In 1st through 3rd, most high-level encounters involve one or more parties that can kill the other one outright if they fail their save. It isn't just Medusas and avoidable effects. Although, I suppose you could just avoid meddling in the affairs of wizards entirely once you get past level 10.
2nd edition had explicit rules for parley and running away.
All editions had rules for talking to bad guys. Although, I always thought it was silly, since you can just roleplay talking to bad guys.
Low-level players can fight real dragons in 3E and 4E. This is because dragons have been scaled to make it possible. As far as the game is concerned, they're "real" dragons. The reason those editions scale down dragons is because under their rubric you are supposed to be able to fight what you come across.
Manchu wrote: Low-level players can fight real dragons in 3E and 4E. This is because dragons have been scaled to make it possible. As far as the game is concerned, they're "real" dragons. The reason those editions scale down dragons is because under their rubric you are supposed to be able to fight what you come across.
The same is true of 1st edition as well. Dragons always scaled. My first edition monster manual has rules for 1 HP per HD dragons (very young) and could easily be tackled by low level parties.
Your scaling argument is a red herring. The problem with that story is the players and their expectations, not the system they came from.
As already discussed, HD is not the same thing as CR or EL. This is because HD, even a HP/HD chart, is not part of an overall design for combat-encounter balance. In fact, system does matter.
To wit, you will note that dragon age is randomly determined in the AD&D MM. This is something like the logic of the wandering monster tables. It is a tool to populate a world, not to balance a fight.
Manchu wrote: As already discussed, HD is not the same thing as CR or EL. This is because HD, even a HP/HD chart, is not part of an overall design for combat-encounter balance. In fact, system does matter.
To wit, you will note that dragon age is randomly determined in the AD&D MM. This is something like the logic of the wandering monster tables. It is a tool to populate a world, not to balance a fight.
The random monster tables were scaled by level. I.e. appropriate encounters for the level. 1st Ed required DMs to pick appropriate encounters just as 3rd and 4th ed did. 3rd and 4th just added CR and EL.
Your point? Are you trying to say that 3rd/4th changed more things than just CR/EL? I think that's obvious and just taking my statement ouf of context.
The random monster tables were scaled by level. I.e. appropriate encounters for the level. 1st Ed required DMs to pick appropriate encounters just as 3rd and 4th ed did. 3rd and 4th just added CR and EL.
I was talking about how to pick encounters. In 1st/2nd, you had to do it based on the monster tables/descriptions and XP values. In 3rd/4th, they 'just added' CR/EL to that equation.
Again, CR/EL are much more (because they are mechanics of an overarching design goal) than the "monster level" clusters of Appendix C, which is by the way only one of several ways random encounter tables are organized there.
This is not "just added." It's a significant change that goes to the very heart of the game.
Because low level character can take on real dragons who are not babies or extremely young in 3.5 and 4E.
You are saying that such a dragon either qualifies as not "real" or presumably a "baby or an extremely young one." I suppose that's a matter of perspective external to the rules. But in terms of the rules themselves, they are real dragons and they are not babies. For instance, there was a Young White Dragon in Keep on the Shadowfell, the very first adventure for 4E.
It's backhanded and low to think better of something you posted that went over the line and edit it out? I think we will have to agree to disagree about that one.
I would say that monitoring yourself for rule infringement is actually what you're supposed to do. You are certainly free to think less of me for it though.
Manchu wrote: You didn't post a thing that was insulting at first. Implying that I would ding you for disagreeing with me is the insult.
When I feel that I can't address a point without being rude, I certainly have the right to remove it. I edited once and tried to edit again before I felt that I couldn't make the point with out going over the line. Just because you disagree with where the line is doesn't change that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There. I edited my edit.
Well, to fill in everyone else and move this back on topic, all pretre actually posted was he thought I was taking the discussion too far afield, as per what he ascribed to my habit, and then he reiterated that I must have misunderstood Alpharius's initial question. I don't think I misunderstood his question. Low-level characters are meant to take on real, non-baby dragons in 3.5 and 4E. I also don't think it's taking the discussion on a tangent (considering the dragon question was a tangent of this topic) to explain that this is because encounter balance is such a central part of later editions as compared to earlier ones.
Alpharius wrote: Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?
No.
But some players think that a DM wouldn't put a monster in front of them unless they could beat it.
See, one advantage to having the DMs wife as a PC in our party, was that she was kind enough to inform the rest of the party (my wife and I, and our neighbor and his wife) of what keywords to listen for in most situations as to whether we could beat something in a fight (ie. the party is in a tavern, and there's a "grizzled dude sitting on a stool by the door with a club leaning on the wall" Obviously, these keywords were not present in the event of an ambush or some other situations.
Now that I'm at home with my AD&D DMG in front of me, I can confirm what I recalled: the "Monster Level" random encounter tables of Appendix C are not tied to character/party level but to dungeon level with the idea that more dangerous monsters live deeper down into the dungeon. This is what I mentioned before: world building and, more specifically, a description of an ecological system (what Maliszewski termed "Gygaxian naturalism") rather than an encounter balancing mechanic. Now, it is true that players could metagame their knowledge of the random tables* to restrict their delving to certain levels. But even there we can see the immense difference between this metagaming strategy, to which a roleplayer might justifiably object, and the giveness of balance in later editions as a matter of game design.
Third Edition entailed a complex mini-game of encounter design that interlocked with a scaling XP reward system. The 3.5 DMG speaks of encounter levels being appropriate to party levels. As with most things, 4E rendered the conceits of 3E even more explicit. Having armed/constrained the DM with the XP budget mechanic, the authors go on to warn: "As you select individual threats to make up you encounter, keep the level of those threats in mind. Monsters and traps more than four levels below the party's level or seven levels above the party's level don't make good challenges. They're either too easy or too hard, even if the encounter level seems right." Such proscriptions have nothing to do with the setting in which the characters exist but rather everything to do with the game that the players are playing.
*Metagaming is not the only possibility. Dungeons are an eco-system in the world of D&D, like a swamp or a forest. Just as they might have some knowledge about the characteristics of a traditional ecosystem generally, it is possible (although by no means necessary) that the characters might have similar knowledge about dungeons. This is reflected in part in the 3E skill Knowledge (Dungeoneering). Still the distinction persists: that more dangerous monsters live deeper in dungeons is a fact about the world whereas encounter balance is an element of game design.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More news:
Introducing Codename: Morningstar
We are excited to announce our newest licensee, Trapdoor Technologies. Trapdoor is working on an integrated toolset and rules knowledge base to support the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Combining rules, character sheets, and adventures together into a clean interface, Trapdoor's goal is to create tools for Dungeon Masters and players that will allow for fast and easy management of their game. Known for now as Codename: Morningstar, the tools will have a limited playtest at Origins Game Fair.
Manchu wrote: But why the presumption that classes should be balanced to begin with? This is quite a modern development and I think it has to do with the idea that every character has a right to 20+ levels.
Well, I like balance.
Even if you leave out the balance argument, though, I hope we can agree to say that designing the game so that the wizard eventually becomes a better fighter than the fighter is just plain wrong.
4th Edition gave fighters parity and utility. They were way more fun to play, to me, than 5th Edition fighters will be.
I like balance, too -- in games that require it like 3.5 (where it was a problem) and 4E (where it was much less of a problem, at least just between classes). But there are games where it isn't an issue. We'll have to wait and see when it comes to 5E.
"Earlier". "Earlier" than what? 3.0? AD&D wasnt balanced, sure, but it was also a wreck of a game looking back on it. Did I enjoy the heck out of it while I played it? Absolutely! Would I go back to it? Not a chance.
TMNT & Other Strangeness was before 3.0, wasn't really balanced (is any Palladium game?), but it also didnt feature the off-balanceness of 3.PF, where some characters could be rendered basically obsolete!
Plenty of WW games were before 3.0, they featured some passing balance through much simpler mechanics. Take werewolf, which had a vague class-esque system through Auspices: sure your Ahroun (fighter) wasnt really focused on spirits, but he could still pick up SOME of what was going on. Same as a Theurge (caster) could pick up combat ability but wouldnt have the uber-ness of an Ahroun. Either way, both could contribute in multiple circumstances!
That's why I'm curious which games Manchu is referring to. I dont pretend to have encyclopaedic knowledge of RPGS! Im curious of the mechanics of an imbalanced system, that wasnt hurt/broken/whatever by its imbalance.
For the longest time, TMNT and other Strangeness was my go-to game. I adored it almost to the exclusion of all else. I am certainly in no place to judge!
Im not sure how balance in an RPG seems like an odd goal though. Having a game where a character can become completely superfluous and an active drain on the others sounds like a recipe for dead characters and hurt feelings. At the very last, it sounds like at least one player will end up not having very much fun!
Generally speaking, there are two kinds of balance we can talk about in RPGs:
(1) encounter balance
(2) player option balance
We've already been going over (1) so I will talk about it first. We're a demographic inured to video games. We easily understand why encounter balance is a good thing. In your standard video game, I have to do X to get to Y to get to Z. If X is impossible, I will never get to Z. X should therefore be tailored to my abilities at that point. That's not to say that X is easy, just that it isn't impossible.
So why would this be a bad thing or at least an unnecessary thing in RPGs, specifically table top RPGs? Let's look at another video game: in Skyrim, you can walk in any direction you like. If you walk in a certain direction, you can run into giants. At lower levels, you don't stand any chance against them in a straight forward fight. So you learn to go around them. This creates the feeling that Skyrim is a living world that exists autonomously from your gameplay.
The same is true -- but to a much broader degree -- in table top RPGs. The great thing about table top RPGs is that you can do pretty much whatever you like. You aren't bound by content that someone else, like a video game design studio, has already prepared for you. You can in a much more real sense "walk in any direction." Encounter balance restrains this freedom: any direction a first level character walks, she will ideally only find encounters appropriate to her level. That in turn leads to a certain tendency to railroading.
Keep in mind, we're not talking about absolutes. A game that cares about encounter balance does not have to be played as railroad, not by any means. But design perspective matters. An adventuring party is far more likely to come across a sleeping red dragon using AD&D than using 4E.
Alpharius wrote: 3.0+ seem far too rigid to be enjoyable for me, so, yeah, different strokes and all that I suppose.
"Balance" in a wargame seems attainable, if perhaps difficult (impossible?) to achieve.
"Balance" in a RPG seems like an odd goal to be reaching for...
I'm a pretty shy, passive person in real life. Even so, I don't find RPGs where my character is useless to be fun. "Balance" in the context of an RPG is (in my opinion) primarily between characters, with a secondary aspect of giving GMs tools to balance encounters, opponents, etc. to make sure they're not overwhelming. How this works really depends on the game: some (The Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG, from what I've heard) have actual mechanics for handling different power levels of characters by making the lower-powered special in other ways. D&D's primary measure of power is the Level, but levels (in most editions) are not equal across classes: the LFQW problem. A 12th level Fighter (who gets a bunch of sword attacks) is generally less powerful than a 12th level mage (who has 5th level spells and can rewrite reality).
So if I'm playing a fighter-type, I feel I should be somewhat useful across the whole range of levels. Same if I'm playing a wizard, cleric, etc. 3.5 has a huge 'metagame' where making a non-caster is considered so non-optimal. My group never noticed this (but we never fully converted to 3.5) because we rarely got above level 12 or so and tended to not have time and resources for stuff like magic item creation, purchasing of magic items, etc.
I feel this is also why 4th (for example) encouraged the party to have similar levels. A character even 1-2 levels behind in that system is going to feel a lot less useful due to having less powers, a point or two less bonus on most rolls, etc. 3rd had this issue: 2nd could have it, but 1st/2nds XP progression is such that it's easy to get to one level off the group's, albeit a bit harder to fully catch up. (Basically, if you're playing a 1st level character with a 5th-6th level group in 1st edition, a large fight might net you a couple thousand XP, allowing you to 'ding!' at least once.)
If I'm not able to contribute effectively I have two broad options: 1. I can try to improvise or play support. This can be fun, if the GM allows it. Alternatively, 2. I can sit around, make my ineffective attack, and fiddle around on my phone because I don't feel any real need to be there.
Tools to balance encounters are helpful, but I wish they were labeled as guidelines more than anything else, as some GMs don't seem to understand that they're often based off rough estimations of monster powers, assumptions of player abilities that may be incorrect, or just plain bad math. The systems in 3rd, 4th, and others are meant to get the GM in the ballpark when planning an encounter, and the GM needs to design with that in mind.
Still, having encounter balance tool is a great aid to GMs that are trying to challenge players and want to avoid situations that are either too easy or too difficult.
I think it's just important that if things are not balanced in that way, that it is stated at the outset. It's not unfair to not that people have expectations and may be disappointed if those expectations aren't met. There's a responsibility on the creator to communicate intent.
So why would this be a bad thing or at least an unnecessary thing in RPGs, specifically table top RPGs? Let's look at another video game: in Skyrim, you can walk in any direction you like. If you walk in a certain direction, you can run into giants. At lower levels, you don't stand any chance against them in a straight forward fight. So you learn to go around them. This creates the feeling that Skyrim is a living world that exists autonomously from your gameplay.
The same is true -- but to a much broader degree -- in table top RPGs. The great thing about table top RPGs is that you can do pretty much whatever you like. You aren't bound by content that someone else, like a video game design studio, has already prepared for you. You can in a much more real sense "walk in any direction." Encounter balance restrains this freedom: any direction a first level character walks, she will ideally only find encounters appropriate to her level. That in turn leads to a certain tendency to railroading.
Keep in mind, we're not talking about absolutes. A game that cares about encounter balance does not have to be played as railroad, not by any means. But design perspective matters. An adventuring party is far more likely to come across a sleeping red dragon using AD&D than using 4E.
I think one of the earlier games in the Skyrim series got a lot of poor reviews because it auto-scaled to the player, actually: If you went into the obligatory Noob Dungeon at a high level you'd find that the usual Rats and Spiders were now ridiculously high-level rats that could probably drag entire horses away. But I digress...
I feel like, personally, a good GM shouldn't 'auto-balance' but should always seek to challenge players within the constraints of the setting. So if the players insist on heading off to the Giant Lands they should get some 'warnings' by encounters that are above their power level, but only slightly so, so as to be tough and challenging but not overly deadly. Systems like Challenge Rating are tools and tools can be used properly or improperly.
Da Boss wrote: I think it's just important that if things are not balanced in that way, that it is stated at the outset.
Note your assumption: the rule is balance should be a high-priority design goal whereas the exception is disregarding balance. Older editions of D&D did not come with warnings that adventurers on dangerous quests might get in over their heads. I guess it must have been self-evident.
Balance wrote: So if the players insist on heading off to the Giant Lands they should get some 'warnings' by encounters that are above their power level, but only slightly so, so as to be tough and challenging but not overly deadly.
I generally disagree. Put it another way, if a player insists that her character jumps into lava ... the result is, all other things being equal, her character will burn to death. As a DM and as a player, I don't think "soft balls" are fun in D&D. Consequences make choices meaningful and meaningfulness is where I find my fun with RPGs.
That said, as a DM I strongly believe in giving the players the necessary information to make informed choices to the extent they decide to pursue that information. In my games, players would not just stumble into an impossible situation. They could, however, insist on rushing headlong into it.
I feel there is a serious difference between "going into the dangerous places' and 'jumping into lava.' The former is the kind fo thing adventurer-types do, while the latter is the kind of thing suicidal people do.
Admittedly, these two categories can and do overlap.
I feel that a certain amount of warnings and gentle pushes to players does make sense. Players are making decisions based off imperfect interpretation and shouldn't be punished for misinterpreting a misspoken phrase from the GM.
Also, it encourages going along with the plot without out-and-out railroading. If I know that the GM won't punish me for going the wrong way, I know it's fine to explore in the direction that it was indicated that the Golden Idol of Plot Importance is rumored to be in, even if that's Giant Country.
Not providing some nudges, to me, encourages PCs to take the safe options, like staying home and avoiding high-risk jobs like adventuring.
That's a major feature of tabletop RPGs to me: a great GM can make the party feel like they're on the edge of dying and then let them escape to recover. I haven't seen a computerized RPG that can really do this yet, despite recent advancements.
Balance wrote: I feel there is a serious difference between "going into the dangerous places' and 'jumping into lava.' The former is the kind fo thing adventurer-types do, while the latter is the kind of thing suicidal people do.
Admittedly, these two categories can and do overlap.
I feel that a certain amount of warnings and gentle pushes to players does make sense. Players are making decisions based off imperfect interpretation and shouldn't be punished for misinterpreting a misspoken phrase from the GM.
Also, it encourages going along with the plot without out-and-out railroading. If I know that the GM won't punish me for going the wrong way, I know it's fine to explore in the direction that it was indicated that the Golden Idol of Plot Importance is rumored to be in, even if that's Giant Country.
Not providing some nudges, to me, encourages PCs to take the safe options, like staying home and avoiding high-risk jobs like adventuring.
That's a major feature of tabletop RPGs to me: a great GM can make the party feel like they're on the edge of dying and then let them escape to recover. I haven't seen a computerized RPG that can really do this yet, despite recent advancements.
This is fairly close to a lot of my feelings. I can count on my fingers the number of times I've seen PCs do outright suicidal things, despite the GM providing proper telegraphing opportunities.In my experience if a PCs walk into 95%+ failure chance situation it's usually due to a failure on the GMs part.
Even then, most interesting and engaging outcomes of these events when they do happen have been the ones where the GM uses it as an opportunity to cause a plot twist or complication with a bit more meat on its bones than a straight up character death.
Older editions of D&D did not come with warnings that adventurers on dangerous quests might get in over their heads. I guess it must have been self-evident.
My point about balance is not about balance between GM and players, that is up to the GM to decide, primarily (though good GMs should be open to input from players.)
My point is about balance within the party. If that is skewed, people should know about it, so that people who value "mechanical efficiency" or whatever you want to call it, can make an informed choice, and people who are more interested in roleplaying whatever concept they want can make their choices.
Balance wrote: I feel there is a serious difference between "going into the dangerous places' and 'jumping into lava.'
Depends on what you mean by dangerous. Do you mean "could get hurt" or do you mean "could die"? I've got nothing to say about "adventures" where getting hurt is the worst that could happen, except that they're just not for me.
Now, I think a proper adventure entails the real possibility of death. That can mean a lot of things, I realize, but for the purposes of this conversation what I really mean is where there are no mechanical guard rails ensuring that IF your character sheet is good enough (and for some people this just means "is consistent with the rules") THEN every party member (a) gets to be just as effective as every other party member and (b) will survive the adventure.
I hasten to add that players can come through what I consider a dangerous adventure without losing even a single hit point. It's a matter of thoughtful planning, creativity, and yes a bit of luck on the dice. In other words, it's a matter of roleplaying. Not to say you couldn't roleplay in a suicidal way, jumping into a pool of lava ... or going into a dark hole full of monsters and just presumptuously expecting to meet'n'defeat everything head on, which should be just as suicidal.
Consequence is the key.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Balance wrote: If I know that the GM won't punish me for going the wrong way
I think this a good example of the space between our perspectives. In my game, there is no "wrong way" to go. As a DM, I am here to narrate the consequences of the player's choices not to preordain which direction is correct and which is incorrect.
Alpharius wrote: "Railroady" seems to be another (perhaps unfortunate) descriptor for many modern "RPGs"...
There is a huge gap between railroading and acting as a curator of the narrative, rather than as a simple combination random number generator/rules arbitrator.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, because in the Good Old Days nobody ever railroaded.
Railroading probably always happened, sure, but maybe also for different reasons. One reason a DM railroads that is totally independent from any rule set is that she just wants to tell her story and god forbid anyone get in the way. However - I do think there are mechanics that create a tendency to a railroading style not only of DMing but also of playing, i.e., a tendency for players to assume they should be and even are "on the train," as it were. I've tried to outline that theory above.
Chongara wrote: than as a simple combination random number generator/rules arbitrator
No one is advocating that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: My point is about balance within the party.
Sure, and I acknowledge the distinction:
Manchu wrote: Generally speaking, there are two kinds of balance we can talk about in RPGs:
(1) encounter balance
(2) player option balance
I just wanted to address your point from the perspective of (1) because you're making the exact same assumption even though you were talking about (2); that is, it's okay to assume balance is the (i.e, normative) design priority such that any other approach needs to come with a WARNING label. I'm just trying to show how deeply ingrained you are (and not just you, also most of the people actively posting ITT) in a certain point of view. Again, my intention is not prove that your point of view is wrong. I just want to show that there is at least one other, equally valid point of view -- namely, one that does not assume any kind of "balance" as a design priority.
I will get around to posting about (2) above, just having a busy day and I want to do it justice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You found us! Now roll for insight.
Hello, my name is Evan Newton, and I am the Producer for Codename: Morningstar.
We are a small group of artists, designers, and engineers who have the honor of building a powerful set of digital tools, in partnership with Wizards of the Coast, for the fifth edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Tabletop Roleplaying Game®.
So what exactly is Codename: Morningstar?
Codename: Morningstar is an integrated toolset and rules knowledgebase for Dungeon Masters and players. It combines rules, character sheets, and adventures together into a clean interface that allows fast and easy management of a face-to-face game. But, to be honest, that’s not all it will offer.
Here are just a few of a large list of features we’re developing:
A powerful and customizable character sheet Fast, guided, character creation Adventure management and tracking as a DM Party communications between players Simple rules search, bookmarking, and annotations Online or offline play In addition, I’m excited to share that (once the tool launches) all the latest D&D adventures and content will be available to download as they are released, simultaneously with the physical versions.
Our goal with this toolset is to make it simple and powerful. As huge fans ourselves, we want Codename: Morningstar to be as flexible as possible while preserving the essence of the D&D® tabletop roleplaying experience. We can’t wait to let you play with it.
However, the truth is, we need your help. In order for us to bring you the best companion to your game, we need your thoughts and suggestions. How do you play? If you had the chance to design a digital tool for fifth edition, what would you want?
Let us know what you think through Twitter and Facebook. I’ve got more updates coming up very soon, including an FAQ and information on how to sign up for our Beta program. For now, let’s dream about how to reinvent tabletop gaming.
Manchu wrote: But why the presumption that classes should be balanced to begin with? This is quite a modern development and I think it has to do with the idea that every character has a right to 20+ levels.
Well, I like balance.
Even if you leave out the balance argument, though, I hope we can agree to say that designing the game so that the wizard eventually becomes a better fighter than the fighter is just plain wrong.
4th Edition gave fighters parity and utility. They were way more fun to play, to me, than 5th Edition fighters will be.
It also meant that DM's could balance around the party, rather then individuals.
I know the DM's who played 3.5 had to figure out massive ways to fight good wizards, CoDzilla and the like. To the point where it became less DM gives challenges the party, to DM needs to fight the wizard in an artificial manner so that he doesn't break the game accidentally.
Having to deal with a specific set in 4E was easy, having to deal with an entire set in 3.5 where you could teleport to the bad guys room (Anti teleport walls all over) buffed to the max beforehand, fire off SoD spells till he dies, and then if he dies he has a clone prepared beforehand or if he gets hurt contingency will return him back.
Then if you wanted to try and quell that beforehand, you had to force artificial limitations on them beforehand, which is still the DM having to specifically fight the magic user in question...
It became less deal with these players, then quell the magic users who actually knew grease could help you instantly kill fire giants in plate armor.
I really, really hope that the return to Quadratic/Linear isn't there to say the least.
I think "balance" is a red herring. I don't look at balance so much as I look at relative utility. In D&D 3.x, a fighter actually went down in relative utility as he leveled up, whereas a wizard continued to grow in relative utility. A wizard can eventually also take over the fighter's "beating gak to death with murder implements" portfolio. I think that's bad design, and I don't think it's mitigated by saying that the game wasn't designed to be played at X level or whatever else. If the company responsible for the game published material to support characters at X level, it's designed to support characters at X level.
What I was most positive on with 4E was its obvious effort to keep everybody relevant - not necessarily balanced, but relevant - in a way that previous editions never did.
I'm in the minority on that. That's okay. A lot of people like wizards eventually becoming Fantasy Jesus. I don't, and since 5th seems to be turning back in that direction, I'm fairly 'meh' on it.
Though we'll see what they do with paladins. I'm an atheist with a flexible moral code, but damn if I don't love me some playing 3.x-style paladins.
Pity there is no Dungeoneering as I think that one is the most characterful for reasons stated above. I'll quote here in spoilers to save you reading through a bunch of other stuff:
Spoiler:
Manchu wrote: Dungeons are an eco-system in the world of D&D, like a swamp or a forest. Just as they might have some knowledge about the characteristics of a traditional ecosystem generally, it is possible (although by no means necessary) that the characters might have similar knowledge about dungeons. This is reflected in part in the 3E skill Knowledge (Dungeoneering).
Manchu wrote: Generally speaking, there are two kinds of balance we can talk about in RPGs:
(1) encounter balance
(2) player option balance
We've already been going over (1) so I will talk about it first. We're a demographic inured to video games. We easily understand why encounter balance is a good thing. In your standard video game, I have to do X to get to Y to get to Z. If X is impossible, I will never get to Z. X should therefore be tailored to my abilities at that point. That's not to say that X is easy, just that it isn't impossible.
When I DM a game, it's easy to adjust the difficulty for the party. 4th edition was super easy for this with the monster maker, but it's not too hard to scale encounters up and down (or have the rest of the kobolds run away when their leader dies).
In my experience, player option balance is the more crucial of the two. There is nothing more disheartening for a rogue than plinking away with your 1d4 dagger while the cleric blasts away a room full of undead. As the characters level, it's important that they all improve in such a way that one character isn't one-shotting the enemies while everyone else yawns. This was my early playtest experience with 5th ed, and I really hope they remember that there WERE some really good things in 4th as far as player option balance goes.
In my experience, player option balance is the more crucial of the two. There is nothing more disheartening for a rogue than plinking away with your 1d4 dagger while the cleric blasts away a room full of undead. As the characters level, it's important that they all improve in such a way that one character isn't one-shotting the enemies while everyone else yawns. This was my early playtest experience with 5th ed, and I really hope they remember that there WERE some really good things in 4th as far as player option balance goes.
In my own playing experience, the group I got most experienced with's rogue would do exactly that... however the difference is, while one or two of us were "blasting away" at the enemies, what she (the rogue) was doing whilst plinking away with 1d4 each hit was granting EVERYONE in the party combat advantage and other really useful effects. In essence, she created a gap in the armor with which we ripped their guts out of.
Part of our party's internal balance was created in part because we all talked about our character ideas before hand, and had some sort of coherent party by the end of the first session. This isn't always feasible or realistic, but will usually lead to some outstanding parties/gaming experiences.
The question at issue ITT is whether the difficulty should be adjusted for the party. Third and Fourth Editions assume yes, AD&D and the Basic "family" of D&D assume no.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: In my experience, player option balance is the more crucial of the two.
The anxiety surrounding balance among party members is rooted in the same approach to game design that gave us balanced encounters. I call this approach "determinative" because it assumes that gameplay is just a matter of executing the rules properly. This gives rise to a tendency to play a character sheet rather than a character. Balance becomes a matter of how many powers each character sheet lists and how many damage dice each power permits one to roll and how big of a bonus one then adds.*
By contrast, what I call the "interpretive" approach to game design assumes that gameplay is a matter of the DM making rulings about how PCs can attempt whatever the players imagine. In this style, a very imaginative and persuasive player will be the most effective regardless of the stats on her character sheet. Conversely, a player with very high stats who can think of nothing better than "I swing my sword" on every round of combat will not seem very effective outside of a few critical hits. In other words, interpretive rules don't care at all about balance because they are designed to facilitate roleplay rather than, to coin a phrase, ruleplay.
* That is as far as 3E made it regarding balance. But, as Ensis Ferrae deftly points out above, 4E had a more sophisticated concept where characters were not primarily balanced against one another as if for PvP purposes but rather for the purpose of creating an effective party. This is something that 3E power gamers particularly loathed about 4E and why they happily bought power gamer friendly Pathfinder products.
Manchu wrote: The anxiety surrounding balance among party members is rooted in the same approach to game design that gave us balanced encounters. I call this approach "determinative" because it assumes that gameplay is just a matter of executing the rules properly. This gives rise to a tendency to play a character sheet rather than a character. Balance becomes a matter of how many powers each character sheet lists and how many damage dice each power permits one to roll and how big of a bonus one then adds.*
By contrast, what I call the "interpretive" approach to game design assumes that gameplay is a matter of the DM making rulings about how PCs can attempt whatever the players imagine. In this style, a very imaginative and persuasive player will be the most effective regardless of the stats on her character sheet. Conversely, a player with very high stats who can think of nothing better than "I swing my sword" on every round of combat will not seem very effective outside of a few critical hits. In other words, interpretive rules don't care at all about balance because they are designed to facilitate roleplay rather than, to coin a phrase, ruleplay.
The question at issue ITT is whether the difficulty should be adjusted for the party. Third and Fourth Editions assume yes, AD&D and the Basic "family" of D&D assume no.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: In my experience, player option balance is the more crucial of the two.
The anxiety surrounding balance among party members is rooted in the same approach to game design that gave us balanced encounters. I call this approach "determinative" because it assumes that gameplay is just a matter of executing the rules properly. This gives rise to a tendency to play a character sheet rather than a character. Balance becomes a matter of how many powers each character sheet lists and how many damage dice each power permits one to roll and how big of a bonus one then adds.*
By contrast, what I call the "interpretive" approach to game design assumes that gameplay is a matter of the DM making rulings about how PCs can attempt whatever the players imagine. In this style, a very imaginative and persuasive player will be the most effective regardless of the stats on her character sheet. Conversely, a player with very high stats who can think of nothing better than "I swing my sword" on every round of combat will not seem very effective outside of a few critical hits. In other words, interpretive rules don't care at all about balance because they are designed to facilitate roleplay rather than, to coin a phrase, ruleplay.
* That is as far as 3E made it regarding balance. But, as Ensis Ferrae deftly points out above, 4E had a more sophisticated concept where characters were not primarily balanced against one another as if for PvP purposes but rather for the purpose of creating an effective party. This is something that 3E power gamers particularly loathed about 4E and why they happily bought power gamer friendly Pathfinder products.
Exalted!
That really does seem to be the major difference between RPGs 'then' (maybe up through AD&D 2E) and 'now' (3.X+).
Breotan wrote: Which one of these is 5th shaping up to be?
I'm really not sure. There are a lot of "interpretive" vibes coming from Mearls and Thompson and the product previews inasmuch as they are clearly evoking an "old school" look. Whether it will be an "old school" game is another matter altogether and probably best judged with at least the Starter Set in hand. But yes, that question is exactly why I am engaging in this kind of discussion of balance in this thread rather than starting another one. If 5E comes out and isn't a purely "determinative" rule set, many younger gamers will be quite shocked and maybe think it is broken or "unbalanced."
Alpharius wrote: That really does seem to be the major difference between RPGs 'then' (maybe up through AD&D 2E) and 'now' (3.X+).
I have a lot more research to do on this theory before I can really give an accurate historical account but my hypothesis is these different tracks of development start in 1977, when AD&D and Basic were both released. Now, AD&D is certainly an interpretive game but all of its minutiae established the precedent of a world described by rules. We also saw the development of modern power gaming throughout 2E. As with any historical thing, it is sometimes difficult to know exactly where the roots end and the trunk begins.
Breotan wrote: Which one of these is 5th shaping up to be?
I'm really not sure. There are a lot of "interpretive" vibes coming from Mearls and Thompson and the product previews inasmuch as they are clearly evoking an "old school" look. Whether it will be an "old school" game is another matter altogether and probably best judged with at least the Starter Set in hand. But yes, that question is exactly why I am engaging in this kind of discussion of balance in this thread rather than starting another one. If 5E comes out and isn't a purely "determinative" rule set, many younger gamers will be quite shocked and maybe think it is broken or "unbalanced."
Alpharius wrote: That really does seem to be the major difference between RPGs 'then' (maybe up through AD&D 2E) and 'now' (3.X+).
I have a lot more research to do on this theory before I can really give an accurate historical account but my hypothesis is these different tracks of development start in 1977, when AD&D and Basic were both released. Now, AD&D is certainly an interpretive game but all of its minutiae established the precedent of a world described by rules. We also saw the development of modern power gaming throughout 2E. As with any historical thing, it is sometimes difficult to know exactly where the roots end and the trunk begins.
To a large degree I think that we're going to see a mirror of what is going on in Table Top Gaming: it's not so long ago that no one really seemed to care all that much about the lack of balance in GW products, because there simply were not balanced rules on the market.
Put another way, the existence of WM/H and other more rigorously balanced rules sets creates an awareness in the gaming public of the flaws in GW's current line, even if the balance isn't appreciably worse then it ever was. It's simply that people are more aware of the elements that were always there.
This will be especially interesting to observe in the context of 5e D&D, because it's not going to be a rival product that 5 will be unfavorably compared to, but it's own earlier version.
I will confess that as 5 approaches retail, whatever cautious optimism I had for it to be an evolution that would take the elements of 4e that I found evolutionary and revolutionary and improve on them... well, let's just say I'm not so optimistic anymore. To the extent that 5 looks like it intends to bring the elements of 1-2ish editions to the fore and relegate 4e elements to "modules", it's going to be quite the culture shock for many players.
The most interesting thing for me will be what company takes up the task of producing a 4e style game. Obviously it will have to be different from Pathfinder, which exists as it does for very case specific reasons, but the core of 4, of balance baked into the bricks (so to speak) is scarcely protect-able.
I stopped playing around 3rd because it moved away from being a story or movie that you make up with friends and became a pen and paper video game before there were many video game RPGs.
Breotan wrote: I stopped playing around 3rd because it moved away from being a story or movie that you make up with friends and became a pen and paper video game before there were many video game RPGs.
That's actually a great example of what I was talking about: I have collected since the original red box days, but in 2-3rd, didn't play very much. Precisely because it felt less like a game and more like a "movie that you make up with friends".
The thing was, I knew that those editions of D&D weren't quite what I wanted, but if you asked me what was wrong, I would have been hard pressed to verbalize it. I simply never thought about balance and player roles in those terms. Again, much as I never really thought about these terms when I thought about 40k when I first started playing.
But I do now, and can no more go back to "beer and pretzels" RPGs then TTGs.
It's weird to call editions other than 4E beer & pretzels roleplaying games ... unless you mean that the roleplaying part of the game is what's beer & pretzels. It's also weird to protest that 5E isn't 4E-esque enough considering 4E was an unmitigated disaster as a product line.
The comparison to WM/H is apt. Matt Wilson fairly reeks of turn of the century WotC. Not only did he do art for MtG but Iron Kingdoms began as a d20RPG. This is why the main factions line up with the 3E elemental damage types, for example.
Beer and Pretzels is almost completely meaningless these days.
I've been thinking that 4th edition might make a decent skirmish game- both players pick forces out of the monster manuals to a set points value and have at it on a battle map. Could be a lot of fun as a competitive game.
I did find that my 4th edition group didn't really roleplay as much as my older groups, but I think that was down the the composition of the party more than anything else.
Manchu: If you liked 4th, I don't think it's weird to protest that 5th didn't keep the good bits, at all. And there are good bits to 4th edition. There's good bits to all the editions.
Da Boss wrote: Beer and Pretzels is almost completely meaningless these days.
It's always been meaningless in the sense that it has no objective meaning. In this case, it seems to connote a lack of mechanical depth/seriousness.
Da Boss wrote: Manchu: If you liked 4th, I don't think it's weird to protest that 5th didn't keep the good bits, at all. And there are good bits to 4th edition. There's good bits to all the editions.
I have often sung the praises of 4E on this very board (even on this very page). But I also understand it did relatively terrible business and lost the brand name's market leader status. The phrase "like in 4E" is not a great selling point. TBH 5E does contain elements of 4E (e.g., healing surges) and Mearls has said more of that will be available in the DMG for those who want it. Not that it will stop folks from saying 5E is not X enough or not Y enough.
Alpharius wrote: "Healing Surges" always felt a bit ridiculous to me.
How is that mechanic explained in the background/flavor text - blessings from the Gods?
I hesitate to use the word "cinematic" on DakkaDakka but ...
In other news:
Somebody summarized the changes between the playtest and the final product as gleaned from the Starter Box pregen fighter. Here's the one generating anxiety among old schoolers:
Second Wind: A first-level fighter now regains 1d10+level hit points rather than gaining 1d6+level temporary hit points.
Note, it's not the change that generates the anxiety but just the notion of something like a "second wind" which smacks of 4E.
Da Boss wrote: Beer and Pretzels is almost completely meaningless these days.
I've been thinking that 4th edition might make a decent skirmish game- both players pick forces out of the monster manuals to a set points value and have at it on a battle map. Could be a lot of fun as a competitive game.
I did find that my 4th edition group didn't really roleplay as much as my older groups, but I think that was down the the composition of the party more than anything else.
Manchu: If you liked 4th, I don't think it's weird to protest that 5th didn't keep the good bits, at all. And there are good bits to 4th edition. There's good bits to all the editions.
Heh, it's funny, Manchu says "It's weird to call editions other than 4E beer & pretzels roleplaying games ...", while I find it weird to describe them in any way but that. In this way I find the edition wars are a fascinating Rorschach test: to the extent that 4e might be thought 'a purely "determinative[sic]" rule set,' and of course a rule set designed to be tight in terms of balance, I simply find it a better game.
This gets to the other thing that Manchu mentions, that 4e was a "unmitigated disaster": I would quarrel with that characterization, but there is no need. As Manchu mentions earlier "If 5E comes out and isn't a purely "determinative" rule set, many younger gamers will be quite shocked and maybe think it is broken or "unbalanced." " (I would quibble with younger... but heck, I'll take the compliment )
There is no need to quarrel with how successful 4e was because... well, who cares? It like saying that Star Wars Miniatures is discontinued, so why would anyone drive to Delaware for a tournament. Not that I ever did that...
As I was writing this Manchu posted this which is exemplary;
Da Boss wrote: Beer and Pretzels is almost completely meaningless these days.
It's always been meaningless in the sense that it has no objective meaning. In this case, it seems to connote a lack of mechanical depth/seriousness.
Da Boss wrote: Manchu: If you liked 4th, I don't think it's weird to protest that 5th didn't keep the good bits, at all. And there are good bits to 4th edition. There's good bits to all the editions.
I have often sung the praises of 4E on this very board (even on this very page). But I also understand it did relatively terrible business and lost the brand name's market leader status. The phrase "like in 4E" is not a great selling point. TBH 5E does contain elements of 4E (e.g., healing surges) and Mearls has said more of that will be available in the DMG for those who want it. Not that it will stop folks from saying 5E is not X enough or not Y enough.
This is an excellent example of what 4e boosters talk about when they talk about the 5e team (and boosters) not quite getting what 4e lovers actually love about 4e. The idea that 5e is made more like 4e with the inclusion of healing surges is like the idea that 40k would be more like WM/H by incorporating some form of the focus-allocation system.
Would it share characteristics of WM? Yeah. Would it be meaningfully like WM/H? Not so much.
4e is no more a collection of certain specific elements (like healing surges, or at-will powers or whatnot) then WM/H is the focus/fury mechanic.
Alpharius wrote: "Healing Surges" always felt a bit ridiculous to me.
How is that mechanic explained in the background/flavor text - blessings from the Gods?
I hesitate to use the word "cinematic" on DakkaDakka but ...
In other news:
Somebody summarized the changes between the playtest and the final product as gleaned from the Starter Box pregen fighter. Here's the one generating anxiety among old schoolers:
Second Wind: A first-level fighter now regains 1d10+level hit points rather than gaining 1d6+level temporary hit points.
Note, it's not the change that generates the anxiety but just the notion of something like a "second wind" which smacks of 4E.
This is a great example of what I believe is the unsolvable problem of 5e: there is a group of players that finds anything, no matter how trivial (and that is pretty trivial) that "smacks of 4E" to be abhorrent, and then there are the people that want 4.5e.
Buzzsaw wrote: There is no need to quarrel with how successful 4e was because... well, who cares?
Wizards of the Coast, Hasbro, Paizo, etc. Thus 5E, rather than 4.5E.
Buzzsaw wrote: 4e is no more a collection of certain specific elements (like healing surges, or at-will powers or whatnot) then WM/H is the focus/fury mechanic.
I didn't claim that 5E is 4E, just that it incorporates elements of 4E.
People looking for 4E in 5E will be disappointed if what they think that means is 5E will be 4.5E, a.k.a. 4E all over again. People who think 4E had some good ideas that should carry on will probably not be disappointed.
Buzzsaw wrote: There is no need to quarrel with how successful 4e was because... well, who cares?
Wizards of the Coast, Hasbro, Paizo, etc. Thus 5E, rather than 4.5E.
Notice who's conspicuously missing from that list? Me. Or, to be more broad, people, like me, that consider 4e the best edition and wanted a 4.5e. My whole point (which you seem to be missing) is that a subset of the current (4e) player base is not going (based on everything that has been said and seen so far) to be willing to become supporters of 5. They (we) are gone. One can ask where, but, again, it's irrelevant: it doesn't matter if my money goes to video games or 13th Age, all WotC knows or cares about is that it is not going to 5e.
Buzzsaw wrote: 4e is no more a collection of certain specific elements (like healing surges, or at-will powers or whatnot) then WM/H is the focus/fury mechanic.
I didn't claim that 5E is 4E, just that it incorporates elements of 4E.
So? You also said "TBH 5E does contain elements of 4E (e.g., healing surges) and Mearls has said more of that will be available in the DMG for those who want it. Not that it will stop folks from saying 5E is not X enough or not Y enough."
It seems very much like you are saying 4e people ought to be impressed, if not satisfied, by the inclusion of 4e "elements". My point is that copying and pasting individual mechanics from 4e into 5e is irrelevant. In WM/H focus and fury are important and signature mechanics, but they are only isolated mechanisms in a much larger, coherent scheme; just as healing surges (etc) are in 4e.
Alpharius wrote: 4 did some damage to the D&D 'brand' though, right?
I'd brace for more disappointment if anyone's looking for more 4 in 5, maybe?
In a very real way, it did the ultimate damage to D&D: it illuminated everything that I disliked but couldn't articulate about pre-4th editions.
It's like driving a beater car for years and years, and then having a friend loan you his sports car for a month. If you have to go back to the beater, it's never the same, because the flaws that you had simply accepted before, that had been invisible, now can't be unseen.
There is a yawning chasm in the D&D fan base, one which I don't believe can ever be bridged.
To some people, 4e is a ridiculous affectation that plays like an MMO on paper as designed by a miniature fetishist.
To other people, 4e is the game that we wish we had started playing 20 years go.
Like Manchu says above, if your interest in 4e was a few isolated mechanics, 5e will probably work fine for you. If your interest in 4e was more philosophical, your quarrel with previous editions greater, then 5e is not going to be your game.
To that end, I think that it is entirely possible that D&D will never be able to recover and return to the prominence that it once had in the marketplace. Frankly, I think that would be a good thing: just as in the miniature hobby, I think that a marketplace of one 800 lb gorilla and a few tiny mice scurrying around is not healthy. An RPG market that has 4 or 5 (or more!) medium sized developers that cater to different play styles seems much preferable.
I see a lot of good in 4E. But it wrecked D&D. I get that some folks don't care about D&D so much as some specific edition. The diehard Pathfinder crowd is a good example. But as I see it, D&D is more than any one edition. It's an ongoing franchise. (I take bits from all over: I prefer the DMing style of Basic/AD&D, the naturalism of 3E, and the cosmology of 4E.) Any new edition will necessarily leave behind the players who refuse to try anything new.
Alpharius wrote: "Healing Surges" always felt a bit ridiculous to me.
How is that mechanic explained in the background/flavor text - blessings from the Gods?
I must have missed it, but did 4th edition have "healing surges"? Are we talking about the Channel Energy cleric power from Pathfinder? Something else?
Manchu wrote: I see a lot of good in 4E. But it wrecked D&D. I get that some folks don't care about D&D so much as some specific edition. The diehard Pathfinder crowd is a good example. But as I see it, D&D is more than any one edition. It's an ongoing franchise. (I take bits from all over: I prefer the DMing style of Basic/AD&D, the naturalism of 3E, and the cosmology of 4E.) Any new edition will necessarily leave behind the players who refuse to try anything new.
This goes well to my chasm point: I wouldn't gainsay you about if 4e "wrecked" D&D, because it's quite clear we differ not only in our expectations of D&D as a product, but about its value to greater RPG marketplace.
It's a funny thing: I've played and collected D&D for going on a quarter of a century, but it's very clear that you and I have completely different emotional attachments to it.
Just like to me, it's a strange thing to say "[a]ny new edition will necessarily leave behind the players who refuse to try anything new"; the overwhelming feeling for me and my friends wasn't "this is new and I don't like it." It was "this is old, and I didn't like it when I played it in elementary school."
That's what's so crazy about all this, so amusing: I'd pretty much agree that 4e broke the player base. I'd also say that 4e is far and away my favorite edition.
Seems like you mistakenly bought D&D for decades, figured out your mistake when you started playing 4E, and can conclude that you don't really like D&D so much as 4E.
For me, I played 2E Revised and I liked that. Then I played 3E and liked that. Then I played 4E and liked it. Then I played Basic and AD&D and liked both of them. And now I am looking forward to 5E.
To be fair, I only ever flipped through a 4E book, but both GMs in my group said they hated it, so I felt no need to investigate further. If they weren't going to run it or enjoy playing it, then there was no point in buying it. Also, we were having tons o fun with Pathfinder so "feth it" was my general feelings. It might be great, but I'll never know.
I'm willing to pick up 5th edition at GenCon and read it, at least.
Manchu wrote: Seems like you mistakenly bought D&D for decades, figured out your mistake when you started playing 4E, and can conclude that you don't really like D&D so much as 4E.
For me, I played 2E Revised and I liked that. Then I played 3E and liked that. Then I played 4E and liked it. Then I played Basic and AD&D and liked both of them. And now I am looking forward to 5E.
I would characterize things slightly differently: to go back to the beater car example, it's better then nothing, but inferior to many other things. But other then that quible, it would seem you and I are in complete agreement. I suppose I could quibble about other elements of that characterization... but it seems that we're in agreement that for the folks (like myself) that want 4.5, 5e is not going to be an acceptable substitute.
Buzzsaw wrote: I didn't like it when I played it in elementary school.
You played 5E in elementary school? Time travel?
Given that the quote is
Buzzsaw wrote: Just like to me, it's a strange thing to say "[a]ny new edition will necessarily leave behind the players who refuse to try anything new"; the overwhelming feeling for me and my friends wasn't "this is new and I don't like it." It was "this is old, and I didn't like it when I played it in elementary school."
Are you genuinely confused as to my meaning, or... ?
The irony is that this exchange seems to be a rather fine example of exactly what we are talking about: two camps that cannot be reconciled. After all, it doesn't seem like we're actually disagreeing about anything, just a matter of some semantics. Yet suddenly I've stepped from an HG Wells novel...
Manchu wrote: Seems like you mistakenly bought D&D for decades, figured out your mistake when you started playing 4E, and can conclude that you don't really like D&D so much as 4E.
For me, I played 2E Revised and I liked that. Then I played 3E and liked that. Then I played 4E and liked it. Then I played Basic and AD&D and liked both of them. And now I am looking forward to 5E.
I liked DnD, but my problem was after playing 4E and having a DM that didn't have to challenge the wizards of the group specifically was my main selling point, I don't really know if I could go back to being regulated to 'sidekick' if I'm not playing a magic class.
I don't think I ever really felt challenged by 4E until Epic, which is also when there were a lot of creatures that would steal healing surges as well as/instead of HP.
Ahtman wrote: I don't think I ever really felt challenged by 4E until Epic, which is also when there were a lot of creatures that would steal healing surges as well as/instead of HP.
Ahtman wrote: I don't think I ever really felt challenged by 4E until Epic, which is also when there were a lot of creatures that would steal healing surges as well as/instead of HP.
You needed a proper DM.
Actually I'd agree to that, 4E required more encounters per day.
Ahtman wrote: I don't think I ever really felt challenged by 4E until Epic, which is also when there were a lot of creatures that would steal healing surges as well as/instead of HP.
You needed a proper DM.
Actually I'd agree to that, 4E required more encounters per day.
Just enforcing one extended rest per 24 hours works pretty well.
We had a lot of success with the more 'old school' type dungeon building/games though. I ran a pretty fun campaign based loosely on the fourthcore stuff where the players were actually entertainer-adventurers whose exploits were watched by the populace. They got bonus points for the longer they went without resting. Which made things all sorts of fun.
Excellent idea, never thought of that. I like any mechanic more when I hear how someone has used it to practical effect. I like the idea of exhaustion, hunger, etc., eating up healing surges much, much better than ability damage. I really dislike any mechanic that forces a lot fiddling with secondary stats.
Dark Sun did that but didn't get to play much of it. I suppose I should have been more specific that many of the modules I played didn't really push us to our limits, it just wasn't until the Epic ones that people started paying attention to their healing surges. I played (and ran) a few homebrew games that were a bit more creative with their depletion.
Ahtman wrote: Dark Sun did that but didn't get to play much of it. I suppose I should have been more specific that many of the modules I played didn't really push us to our limits, it just wasn't until the Epic ones that people started paying attention to their healing surges. I played (and ran) a few homebrew games that were a bit more creative with their depletion.
Oh modules, good for teaching and quick runs but they aren't exactly good for challenges.
I wonder if I am the only one bothered by the lack of flavor text attached to the abilities? They describe the rules, but not why they have them or how they look in the world.
pretre wrote: It's the base preview adventure. I don't think it's going to have as much detail as the monster manual.
I hope so, but that was kind of a big problem I had with 4th. None of the monsters had any explanation for how their abilities worked except roll this and add that. It wasn't too big a problem on some monsters with weapons and claws because I know what a sword looks like, but others were harder to picture. I kind of want it to be a little like warhammer were every rule on a model gets a fluffy explanation for why it exist or at least how to describe it.
pretre wrote: I'm trying to think back if D&D has ever provided that level of detail for every ability.
I don't think so. 3rd was better about some things. Some times you would a description in both fluff and rules. Though there wasn't really much of a brake between fluff and rules. Other times it would just have names of common attacks an abilities.
The 4E MMs are pretty frustrating because they lack the ecological detail of previous editions. It's not to say that MM entries filled you in on EVERYTHING about a monster but they did give you a pretty good sense of what it's all about.
Looking over that page, my concern is the lack of art for the Nothic and Ochre Jelly. I hope the pics are on the facing page or something.
Being "light" is beside the point, unless you mean "light on quality." It seems a bit dumb to include a monster like a nothic with no art or description when you have an ogre picture. I mean, most people playing D&D have heard of ogres and can easily imagine the exact art presented but what "starter" player has ever heard of a nothic? Even just giving a description of a nothic (for example, in the adventure text) would be pretty lame. Like I said, I hope there will be a picture of one somewhere in the Starter Set.
I have no idea what a nothic might look like, or how their gaze thing works. I am guessing that they are like floating tattered cloak with claws. It is 100% guess though.
agnosto wrote: Am I wrong for wanting am Ogre miniature based on that pic? It'd be awesome in my WHFB Ogre Kingdoms army.
[tinfoil hat time] they probably are in cahoots with GW, and want to boost miniatures sales by requiring at least 50% GW models for all creatures/characters represented on the table [/tinfoil hat time]
Ok I think that kind of underlines the problem. They use the little space they have for fluff text to tell you Nothics use to be mages and not to tell you they are creepycool eye creatures. That is just plain bad
agnosto wrote: Am I wrong for wanting am Ogre miniature based on that pic? It'd be awesome in my WHFB Ogre Kingdoms army.
[tinfoil hat time] they probably are in cahoots with GW, and want to boost miniatures sales by requiring at least 50% GW models for all creatures/characters represented on the table [/tinfoil hat time]
Ahtman wrote: It still could be on the opposite page; not ready to get worked up just yet.
Manchu wrote: Looking over that page, my concern is the lack of art for the Nothic and Ochre Jelly. I hope the pics are on the facing page or something.
Ahtman wrote: It still could be on the opposite page; not ready to get worked up just yet.
Manchu wrote: Looking over that page, my concern is the lack of art for the Nothic and Ochre Jelly. I hope the pics are on the facing page or something.
If you are trying to say you had stated something similar then I guess I have point out that I know you did, and I was agreeing.
Manchu wrote: Does this mean that I should say that I knew that you knew and so posted to reaffirm our solidarity?
Only pinky swearing will do!
Manchu wrote: In other news, people are getting their Starter Sets early depending on from where they ordered it. So far, no reports of early Amazon deliveries ...
As Mike Mearls explained in Legends & Lore: The Basic Rules for Dungeons & Dragons is a PDF (over 100 pages, in fact) that covers the core of the game. It runs from levels 1 to 20 and covers the cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard, presenting what we view as the essential subclass for each. It also provides the dwarf, elf, halfling, and human as race options; in addition, the rules contain 120 spells, 5 backgrounds, and character sheets.
But the best part? The Basic Rules is a free PDF. Anyone can download it from our website. We want to put D&D in as many hands as possible, and a free, digital file is the best way to do that.
Here now is the Basic Rules for Dungeons & Dragons:
Using These Rules
The Basic Rules document is divided into three parts.
Part 1 is about creating a character, providing the rules and guidance you need to make the character you’ll play in the game. It includes information on the various races, classes, backgrounds, equipment, and other customization options that you can choose from. Many of the rules in part 1 rely on material in parts 2 and 3.
Part 2 details the rules of how to play the game, beyond the basics described in this introduction. That part covers the kinds of die rolls you make to determine success or failure at the tasks your character attempts, and describes the three broad categories of activity in the game: exploration, interaction, and combat.
Part 3 is all about magic. It covers the nature of magic in the worlds of D&D, the rules for spellcasting, and a selection of typical spells available to magic-using characters (and monsters) in the game.
(2.67 Mbs PDF) Basic Rules
Manchu wrote: LFQW is not as simple as "the fighter can only swing once."
This is a game about imagination. Those who can only imagine "the fighter swinging once" may need to practice more.
Obviously. People who can imagine that that's all that I meant may need to imagine more. I'm just jotting some notes while reading through. Maybe imagine a carriage return in my post and it'll make more sense.
You seem to have psychic powers mixed up with imagination.
In any case, LFQW is a metaphor rather than an accurate statement about mechanics. Even as a metaphor, it entails a very specific way of playing -- similar to the way people play board games or war games. WotC has always designed D&D on this premise in the past. Whether that's what they've done this time is not a matter of fighters being "very swing once."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pretre wrote: I'm wishing I ordered it from somewhere other than Amazon right now. Mine's not due forever.
Nah, it's no biggie. We have the good stuff in the pdf. The Starter Set is just fluff by comparison so waiting until 7/15 is okay.
Manchu wrote: You seem to have psychic powers mixed up with imagination.
In any case, LFQW is a metaphor rather than an accurate statement about mechanics. Even as a metaphor, it entails a very specific way of playing -- similar to the way people play board games or war games. WotC has always designed D&D on this premise in the past. Whether that's what they've done this time is not a matter of fighters being "very swing once."
Right, those are separate thoughts. Hence the presence of a period between them. I put space between them now to make that more clear.
Specifically, I skimmed and read through fighter. Got the jist. Saw that Wizard was much the same as every edition except 4th. Then said 'LFQW'. Then modified that by saying that spell slots are fewer for the big stuff. Geeze.
Uh, fine, how about this -- we'll save the debate about whether 5E is LFQW until later and not throw around such purely negative terms minutes after release.
pretre wrote: They're estimating 7/21 to 7/25. Argh.
They sent me an email yesterday confirming shipping date of 7/15. They actually sent me two different emails, both confirming 7/15 shipping date -- one for a copy I preordered in May and another for a second copy I preordered in June.
Manchu wrote: Uh, fine, how about this -- we'll save the debate about whether 5E is LFQW until later and not throw around such purely negative terms minutes after release.
Who says they are purely negative terms? They are factual terms. I love all editions of D&D and 3 of the 4 have been LFQW.
pretre wrote: They're estimating 7/21 to 7/25. Argh.
They sent me an email yesterday confirming shipping date of 7/15. They actually sent me two different emails, both confirming 7/15 shipping date -- one for a copy I preordered in May and another for a second copy I preordered in June.
Interesting... I look forward to confirmation then! Thanks.
4 wasn't LFQW. It was one of the things that was nice about it. I had hoped they would find a nice balance between older editions and 4E for the Fighter but it doesn't sound like it, but that is going by the conversation. I haven't had a chance to read the pdf yet.
I also got a notice for the 15th as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some one sent me a message saying it was 3.5+ and that you could tell Monte Cook was involved because there are 30 pages of spells but only a handful of martial maneuvers.
This is kind of why it is super important to break away from using phrases like LFQW. It's not always clear what they mean (even to the people using them), other than they are put downs, and even worse using such terms tends to assume that "D&D is X."
For example, I wonder if Ahtman's friend would think Monty Cook wrote everything that came before Third Edition ... given earlier editions entail hundreds of spells and basically no "martial maneuvers."
I'll be honest. If 5th smells too much like 4th, I won't be playing. I've been playing since I was five years old, but 4th turned me away after the first game with it.
I want lots and lots of options for character creation. I want it to feel like I'm there. If it can do that, I'll accept it.
I haven't been able to muster the discipline needed to approach this one page at a time and in order BUT (really and truly) so far, so good. It really does seem to split the difference between old school and modern gaming. Could be a triumph.
Manchu wrote: I haven't been able to muster the discipline needed to approach this one page at a time and in order BUT (really and truly) so far, so good. It really does seem to split the difference between old school and modern gaming. Could be a triumph.
Yeah, I've been popping around.
Has anyone seen a defined time for a turn?
Just noticed that Delayed Blast Fireball is duration concentration or 1 minute. It grows by 1d6 per turn maintained. If it's still 6 seconds a turn, that could be beefy if you get the drop on somebody.
Technically possible but the caster can pretty much do nothing else for 10 rounds. It's the sort of thing that would be talked about as very clever for a long time afterwards if you could manage it, which is perfect IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
pretre wrote: They definitely moved away from combat on a grid map. It's a variant now but that's about it.
I was wondering about this regarding Opportunity Attacks. Tying them to the "reaction" mechanic really does free you up from the grid. More points for 5E in my book.
I'm not seeing a lot of Save or Die type stuff. Make that any.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: They definitely moved away from combat on a grid map. It's a variant now but that's about it.
I was wondering about this regarding Opportunity Attacks. Tying them to the "reaction" mechanic really does free you up from the grid. More points for 5E in my book.
Yeah, now if you move through someone's reach you provoke it. It's really the same as it was in previous editions (very similar to 3.5, iirc). The reaction is a nice touch though since they specifically limit that to one per turn.
Manchu wrote: For example, I wonder if Ahtman's friend would think Monty Cook wrote everything that came before Third Edition ... given earlier editions entail hundreds of spells and basically no "martial maneuvers."
It was just a cursory read and response as far as I understand it, and I think the Monte Cook was meant more as a bit of a joke than completely damning. He was a big fan of 4E so I think moving away almost completely, at least the perception, from maneuvers probably is irritating to him. I probably could give the document a quick look but I am using my spare moments to respond to you!
So, which previous edition is this most like? The "story in your head" style of 1st edition or the "pen and paper video game" style of 3rd and 4th edition?
Breotan wrote: So, which previous edition is this most like? The "story in your head" style of 1st edition or the "pen and paper video game" style of 3rd and 4th edition?
I think you've had some...interesting games of (A)D&D in your past!
Breotan wrote: So, which previous edition is this most like? The "story in your head" style of 1st edition or the "pen and paper video game" style of 3rd and 4th edition?
I think you've had some...interesting games of (A)D&D in your past!
Manchu wrote: For example, I wonder if Ahtman's friend would think Monty Cook wrote everything that came before Third Edition ... given earlier editions entail hundreds of spells and basically no "martial maneuvers."
It was just a cursory read and response as far as I understand it, and I think the Monte Cook was meant more as a bit of a joke than completely damning. He was a big fan of 4E so I think moving away almost completely, at least the perception, from maneuvers probably is irritating to him. I probably could give the document a quick look but I am using my spare moments to respond to you!
Considering Monte Cook was responsible for LFQW due to his massive wizard favoritism, I doubt he was much a fan of 4E (Especially if you read through his tweets and thoughts on 4E where he denounced the Warlord as SHOUTING HEALING, he got so much wrong!)
Manchu wrote: I genuinely think you could play this either as something like AD&D or as something like 3.5E, depending on what you prefer.
These Basic rules will not get you to 4E, however.
That sounds near to Amazing. Ok, I'm going to download the PDF and give it a read. I've been wary and worried that it'll be a dumbed down simplistic game for people that don't play RPG's.
Manchu wrote: For example, I wonder if Ahtman's friend would think Monty Cook wrote everything that came before Third Edition ... given earlier editions entail hundreds of spells and basically no "martial maneuvers."
It was just a cursory read and response as far as I understand it, and I think the Monte Cook was meant more as a bit of a joke than completely damning. He was a big fan of 4E so I think moving away almost completely, at least the perception, from maneuvers probably is irritating to him. I probably could give the document a quick look but I am using my spare moments to respond to you!
Considering Monte Cook was responsible for LFQW due to his massive wizard favoritism, I doubt he was much a fan of 4E (Especially if you read through his tweets and thoughts on 4E where he denounced the Warlord as SHOUTING HEALING, he got so much wrong!)
Manchu wrote: For example, I wonder if Ahtman's friend would think Monty Cook wrote everything that came before Third Edition ... given earlier editions entail hundreds of spells and basically no "martial maneuvers."
It was just a cursory read and response as far as I understand it, and I think the Monte Cook was meant more as a bit of a joke than completely damning. He was a big fan of 4E so I think moving away almost completely, at least the perception, from maneuvers probably is irritating to him. I probably could give the document a quick look but I am using my spare moments to respond to you!
Considering Monte Cook was responsible for LFQW due to his massive wizard favoritism, I doubt he was much a fan of 4E (Especially if you read through his tweets and thoughts on 4E where he denounced the Warlord as SHOUTING HEALING, he got so much wrong!)
LFQW existed long before Monte Cook came along.
It likely did, but I mainly know 3E and Monte Cook's thoughts on wizards and casters being the 'Better choice' and should always be.
pretre wrote: LFQW existed long before Monte Cook came along.
I don't think the idea was that he invented it, but that he embraced it and expanded upon it. Wizards, for all their LFQW'ishness, were more thought out in the 1st and 2nd edition. Sure they eventually were quite powerful, but they took longer to level, had lots more spell management, had to spend more time finding new spells, and were far more fragile. Getting them leveled was a feat with high pay off in the end. In 3/3.5/PF casters are pretty much handed the keys to the kingdom and told to have a good time. Martial characters seem like a fleeting afterthought.
Well you don't get to be a superhero in 5E. There seems to be a soft cap of 20 on PC ability scores. The highest score you get in the standard array or point buy systems is 15. There's very little "glowiness" in character abilities.
Manchu wrote: I genuinely think you could play this either as something like AD&D or as something like 3.5E, depending on what you prefer.
These Basic rules will not get you to 4E, however.
Having digested the PDF, I completely agree.
Whatever slender hope I may have maintained can be well and truly buried now.
The best way to describe it is with what Manchu says above: "you don't get to be a superhero in 5E". If there was one single point that my group agreed on, it was how they enjoyed the feeling of being "heroic" even at first level.
I can't speak for everyone else that would be called a 4e fanatic, but I certainly can't see paying for anything that builds on this. Where there are good ideas (and I'll freely admit there are a few), it looks like it'll be far easier to graft them onto the existing framework of 4e then trying to transplant the viscera of 4e into... this.
@Buzzsaw: Yes, it is hard to see how anyone who really loves the crunchiness of 4E could simulate it with 5E, even with the idea of bolting on more aspects of 4E with the upcoming DMG. Fortunately, there's a ton of 4E material.
I will say there is quite a difference between being a hero and being a super hero. Fourth went with the latter. Fifth goes with the former.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It still beat out being "Spell casters and people who carried their stuff"
True but that was only really a problem at high levels. Plus Third clearly wanted everyone to become some kind of spell caster, hence prestige classes. In any case, I very much doubt this will be an issue in 5E.
I don't mind it going to a lower power scale, or not being like 4E, I just don't like the regression in martial thinking/design. Martial classes are limited to what the designers think they can do in real life whereas casters are only limited by their imagination.
You can add in some new martial classes. One of the big + for 5ed is that it looks like we are back to 3ed in terms of how easy it is to add in new classes. If you want to play a super hero, it shouldn't be too hard to make a class for it.
Ahtman wrote: Martial classes are limited to what the designers think they can do in real life whereas casters are only limited by their imagination.
I disagree. First, it is not a matter of classes but rather of characters, Secondly, the truth is that all characters are primarily limited by their players' imaginations. D&D is not best understood as a "permissive ruleset," as with board games and war games. Finally, there is no such thing as the "martial classes" outside of 4E.
Ahtman wrote: Martial classes are limited to what the designers think they can do in real life whereas casters are only limited by their imagination.
I disagree.
Well obliviously so do I.
Manchu wrote: First, it is not a matter of classes but rather of characters
I never really bought that excuse for poor/lacking martial mechanics.
Manchu wrote: Secondly, the truth is that all characters are primarily limited by their players' imaginations.
Mechanically speaking that doesn't really ring true. I wasn't referring to the imagination of the players, but of the designers, who seem myopic when it comes to martial characters.
Manchu wrote: @Buzzsaw: Yes, it is hard to see how anyone who really loves the crunchiness of 4E could simulate it with 5E, even with the idea of bolting on more aspects of 4E with the upcoming DMG. Fortunately, there's a ton of 4E material.
I will say there is quite a difference between being a hero and being a super hero. Fourth went with the latter. Fifth goes with the former.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It still beat out being "Spell casters and people who carried their stuff"
True but that was only really a problem at high levels. Plus Third clearly wanted everyone to become some kind of spell caster, hence prestige classes. In any case, I very much doubt this will be an issue in 5E.
Not so much higher levels, considering even lower level spells could break an encounter. A group of Fighters vs a Wizard and the wizard could still win easily. Heck grease can still topple Fire giants in half-plate on an easy check.
And yes it did, considering Monte Cook's words to the same that the smarter players picked spell-casters.
I disagree. First, it is not a matter of classes but rather of characters, Secondly, the truth is that all characters are primarily limited by their players' imaginations. D&D is not best understood as a "permissive ruleset," as with board games and war games. Finally, there is no such thing as the "martial classes" outside of 4E.
Generally the things about fighters in 3E was that they could do things...If the DM allowed it, generally spells were mechanical and thus had a set reason to do things, which made it harder for a DM to say no to.
The main thing was I only really started having fun in 3.5E was when they either 'Tiered it" like some sort of 7th edition Warhammer game, or I played a caster as well.
Generally it felt as if most of the games I played without tiers was where the DM had to fight the casters at most points so they didn't end up breaking things, sure they could limit them but at the same time it meant it still had to focus on the casters spotlight.
I have been skimming the basic rules pondering a few feat/ability ideas and if they would brake the game.
An ability that lets you add your proficiency bonus to your AC if your not wearing armor? How about a expertise bonus? (Actually where dose it say what your non armored AC is? I haven't found that yet.)
What about applying an Expertise bonus to more then just skill checks things like weapons, spells? I ponder that might be too much. It's a scaling bonus that can be a +6 at high level.
I also ponder if you could do proficiency in things like dragons or other general groupings. Like you take a feat in dragons and get to add your proficiency bonus for any ability check directly relating to a dragon or dragons.
I think it would be OK balance if I just made up some new skills for different backgrounds. Like if I wanted the game to be in space or something like that.
You know I think some of this is hold over from older LFQW discussions, but I also think I want to hold out for the PHB with the full range of options before really getting to into. Generally I am fairly happy with what I am seeing, even if they did rip off some of my ideas without knowing it.
Manchu wrote: @Buzzsaw: Yes, it is hard to see how anyone who really loves the crunchiness of 4E could simulate it with 5E, even with the idea of bolting on more aspects of 4E with the upcoming DMG. Fortunately, there's a ton of 4E material.
What's so irritating about the whole matter is many of the folks (myself included) saw this exact state of affairs coming, and regularly had our concerns mocked and disregarded.
Manchu wrote: I will say there is quite a difference between being a hero and being a super hero. Fourth went with the latter. Fifth goes with the former.
I disagree to an extent, but whatever the semantics it seems both of us agree that there is a distinct difference in this regard between the editions.
Manchu wrote: Can you give me an example of myopic design as to the Fighter or Rogue in 5E?
A small but telling example: each class adds proficiency to two (and only two) ability scores. For the fighter class it's strength and constitution. Which would be awesome if fighters were all of the 'hit things' type, but fighters also contain the 'shoot things' archetype. So the rules completely support a low strength, high dex fighter either as ranged or melee... except the saves.
This exists with pretty much all the classes, albeit to less of a degree: why, for example, does your bookish and withdrawn cleric with high wisdom and strength but poor charisma have wisdom and charisma save proficiencies? Because... well, because.
Now, while it's fair to point out that 4e also had classes with fixed bonuses to NADs, it's also fair to point out the the (much less) relative importance of that (+1 or so) bonus compared to proficiency in 5e (which starts at +2 and goes to +6).
Buzzsaw wrote: What's so irritating about the whole matter is many of the folks (myself included) saw this exact state of affairs coming, and regularly had our concerns mocked and disregarded.
Again, 4E was a disaster for WotC. Why anyone would imagine WotC would continue on that path is a real mystery. Even the guy brought on to champion 4E in the design process eventually saw that D&D is not a tactical miniatures game:
Robert J. Schwalb wrote:So here we are, at the dawn of the next edition, an edition I, in some part, helped to create. When I was brought onto the team, it was with the understanding that I would fly the 4th Edition flag, a game I had worked hard to support through the countless articles and supplements throughout the life of that game. Looking back, I find it strange since I have all but divorced myself from the 4th Edition rules, largely for the reasons I outline above. While I enjoy 4E, it scratched a different itch for me than the one D&D had for many years. As I worked on 5th Edition, I shed my 3rd Edition and 4th Edition influences. I abandoned conceptions and beliefs about design that I had held as truths for years until I returned to my roots, to a place where the most important part of D&D is not what’s in the book but what happens at the table.
Buzzsaw wrote: each class adds proficiency to two (and only two) ability scores
Whoa now. That's what we have in the Basic rules. You know, the PDF that does not even include feats yet. Moreover, D&D is not a permissive war gaming rule set. While we wait for the rest of the published character options, groups can experiment -- changing the STR proficiency to a DEX proficiency for a character is not going to "break the game." This kind of house ruling, and rulings in general, are at the center of roleplaying games (unlike war games and board games).
Buzzsaw wrote: What's so irritating about the whole matter is many of the folks (myself included) saw this exact state of affairs coming, and regularly had our concerns mocked and disregarded.
Again, 4E was a disaster for WotC. Why anyone would imagine WotC would continue on that path is a real mystery.
Heh, not so great a mystery: I like 4e and find it the superior product.
Besides, you seem to be missing the point: I'm complaining that during the early playtest especially the 4e folks were being told that they were crazy for saying that 5e was never going to be able to fit in the 4e elements we wanted. Now you're saying "well, of course it wasn't, because X". That's fine, but it's nothing to do with my point. Heck, even now there are people maintaining that 5e will be able to handle it "in modules".
Manchu wrote: Even the guy brought on to champion 4E in the design process eventually saw that D&D is not a tactical miniatures game:
Robert J. Schwalb wrote:So here we are, at the dawn of the next edition, an edition I, in some part, helped to create. When I was brought onto the team, it was with the understanding that I would fly the 4th Edition flag, a game I had worked hard to support through the countless articles and supplements throughout the life of that game. Looking back, I find it strange since I have all but divorced myself from the 4th Edition rules, largely for the reasons I outline above. While I enjoy 4E, it scratched a different itch for me than the one D&D had for many years. As I worked on 5th Edition, I shed my 3rd Edition and 4th Edition influences. I abandoned conceptions and beliefs about design that I had held as truths for years until I returned to my roots, to a place where the most important part of D&D is not what’s in the book but what happens at the table.
Buzzsaw wrote: each class adds proficiency to two (and only two) ability scores
Whoa now. That's what we have in the Basic rules. You know, the PDF that does not even include feats yet. Moreover, D&D is not a permissive war gaming rule set. While we wait for the rest of the published character options, groups can experiment -- changing the STR proficiency to a DEX proficiency for a character is not going to "break the game." This kind of house ruling, and rulings in general, are at the center of roleplaying games (unlike war games and board games).
It seems scarcely fair to ask for myopic rules, and then when presented with a requested example wave it away with "well, you can just house rule it". The ability to change the rules doesn't mean the rule isn't bad as written, which is what you asked about, after all.
Buzzsaw wrote: What's so irritating about the whole matter is many of the folks (myself included) saw this exact state of affairs coming, and regularly had our concerns mocked and disregarded.
Again, 4E was a disaster for WotC. Why anyone would imagine WotC would continue on that path is a real mystery. Even the guy brought on to champion 4E in the design process eventually saw that D&D is not a tactical miniatures game:
Robert J. Schwalb wrote:So here we are, at the dawn of the next edition, an edition I, in some part, helped to create. When I was brought onto the team, it was with the understanding that I would fly the 4th Edition flag, a game I had worked hard to support through the countless articles and supplements throughout the life of that game. Looking back, I find it strange since I have all but divorced myself from the 4th Edition rules, largely for the reasons I outline above. While I enjoy 4E, it scratched a different itch for me than the one D&D had for many years. As I worked on 5th Edition, I shed my 3rd Edition and 4th Edition influences. I abandoned conceptions and beliefs about design that I had held as truths for years until I returned to my roots, to a place where the most important part of D&D is not what’s in the book but what happens at the table.
Buzzsaw wrote: each class adds proficiency to two (and only two) ability scores
Whoa now. That's what we have in the Basic rules. You know, the PDF that does not even include feats yet. Moreover, D&D is not a permissive war gaming rule set. While we wait for the rest of the published character options, groups can experiment -- changing the STR proficiency to a DEX proficiency for a character is not going to "break the game." This kind of house ruling, and rulings in general, are at the center of roleplaying games (unlike war games and board games).
4E was a marketing disaster, considering they insulted the 3.5 players, bucked too many things at once (and created their worst enemy in pathfinder), but they even managed to keep majority market share up until they tried to turn 4E into more 3E, alienating 4E players in the process.
It was not the game itself that broke it, it was their horrific marketing, and now they are doing the same by insulting 4E to try and please the grognards and grab some pathfinder fans. It's disgusting that they haven't learned a damn thing.
So far, so good on the PDF. They definitely cut some broken stuff out (rolling twice every turn?!) And brought back the advantage/disadvantage thing I really liked.
Wizard seems a little more linear than i would have expected. Also, starting gold for a cleric is higher than a rogue?!?!? Eff that, I'm robbing that cleric first chance I get.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: So far, so good on the PDF. They definitely cut some broken stuff out (rolling twice every turn?!) And brought back the advantage/disadvantage thing I really liked.
Wizard seems a little more linear than i would have expected. Also, starting gold for a cleric is higher than a rogue?!?!? Eff that, I'm robbing that cleric first chance I get.
Well the Cleric would get potential donations, gold for healing people, potential allowance from the temple etc.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: So far, so good on the PDF. They definitely cut some broken stuff out (rolling twice every turn?!) And brought back the advantage/disadvantage thing I really liked.
Wizard seems a little more linear than i would have expected. Also, starting gold for a cleric is higher than a rogue?!?!? Eff that, I'm robbing that cleric first chance I get.
Well the Cleric would get potential donations, gold for healing people, potential allowance from the temple etc.
While I haven't read the new 5e stuff, I *could* assume that the reason a cleric would start off with more gold, is because they "need" more gear to start with.... Most rogues are what, the shirt on their back, a small pointy object and a backpack with random adventuring gear? The Cleric usually "needs" a weapon, a shield, chain/plate/whatever armor, possibly a holy implement, and a pack with random adventuring gear.
Of course, this is all meaningless as I've not seen the books with their potential fluff reasoning as to why this is the case.
Buzzsaw wrote: It seems scarcely fair to ask for myopic rules, and then when presented with a requested example wave it away with "well, you can just house rule it". The ability to change the rules doesn't mean the rule isn't bad as written, which is what you asked about, after all.
You're right, I should have addressed your point on its own narrow terms rather than skipping through to the bigger, controlling issue of D&D being a RPG rather than a board game or war game.
The issue you brought up is that, in the Basic PDF, Fighters don't add proficiency to DEX saving throws even considering it is possible to play a Fighter that concentrates on DEX rather than STR. In other words, the Basic PDF doesn't permit you stack your Proficiency bonus onto your highest ability. In other, other words, this is (incidentally) a road block to power gaming. So what? Honestly, what is the harm?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It was not the game itself that broke it, it was their horrific marketing
Let's be honest, it was both. Also, when did WotC try to make 4E more like 3E? I hope you're not talking about Essentials because Essentials was nothing like 3E.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: Also, starting gold for a cleric is higher than a rogue?!?!? Eff that, I'm robbing that cleric first chance I get.
Buzzsaw wrote: It seems scarcely fair to ask for myopic rules, and then when presented with a requested example wave it away with "well, you can just house rule it". The ability to change the rules doesn't mean the rule isn't bad as written, which is what you asked about, after all.
You're right, I should have addressed your point on its own narrow terms rather than skipping through to the bigger, controlling issue of D&D being a RPG rather than a board game or war game.
The issue you brought up is that, in the Basic PDF, Fighters don't add proficiency to DEX saving throws even considering it is possible to play a Fighter that concentrates on DEX rather than STR. In other words, the Basic PDF doesn't permit you stack your Proficiency bonus onto your highest ability. In other, other words, this is (incidentally) a road block to power gaming. So what? Honestly, what is the harm?.
I suppose a quick answer to the issue of "the Basic PDF doesn't permit you stack your Proficiency bonus onto your highest ability" would be that in general, it does. That is to say, for the other three classes, you will always be getting proficiency on your highest ability saves, there is no alternative build condition presented for them. But for fighters there is. A fighter playing the archer style is not only clearly disadvantaged by the way the rule is written, it is uniquely disadvantaged.
I would also aver concerning this notion that RPGs are unique in terms of needing house rules, as compared to Mini games. After all, a quick glance up the forums will show a very large amount of house rules for one particular game. Put simply, the reason that 40k needs large amounts of house rules, while (to my knowledge) house rules are virtually unknown in WM/H and Infinity, etc, is not to do with one being an RPG and the other not, it's a matter of 40k being very poorly written, while others are very well written.
But why bother with such diversions? This again seems like a situation where we're not actually disagreeing. I am incomplete agreement when you observe that "it is hard to see how anyone who really loves the crunchiness of 4E could simulate it with 5E". To that extent, when you say "[t]his kind of house ruling, and rulings in general, are at the center of roleplaying games", I think this illuminates the phenomenon precisely. When I played 2nd, or early 3rd, I was well accustomed to having to house rule rules of various sorts.. and it irritated me. Looking back I can't believe the efforts we made to make rules that we thought were terribly written work. More to the point, having played 4e, I know that I am unwilling to go back to that type of product.
This all comes around to something I said some weeks ago;
Alpharius wrote: 4 did some damage to the D&D 'brand' though, right?
I'd brace for more disappointment if anyone's looking for more 4 in 5, maybe?
In a very real way, it did the ultimate damage to D&D: it illuminated everything that I disliked but couldn't articulate about pre-4th editions.
It's like driving a beater car for years and years, and then having a friend loan you his sports car for a month. If you have to go back to the beater, it's never the same, because the flaws that you had simply accepted before, that had been invisible, now can't be unseen.
There is a yawning chasm in the D&D fan base, one which I don't believe can ever be bridged.
As ZebioLizard2 mentions, there were many reasons for the decline of the D&D brand during the period of 4e, and it strikes me that all of them are still in effect, some even more so. Certainly I don't think we can imagine the 4e player base is less alienated then the 3.x players were at the disastrous start of marketing for 4e (this is quickly apparent if one takes a look at the comments on the above linked article).
In the end, 5e looks to be shaping up to be everyone's second favorite rules set.
-If you like the crunchiness of 4e and the feeling of being a hero (or superhero if one prefers), 5e... kinda sorta works. It's better then 3.x, Pathfinder and so on in that department.
-If you like the Pathfinder-y nature of Pathfinder... well, it's not that, but it's (I presume) closer then 4e was.
-If you loved 3.x, 5e is kinda close to that, certainly closer then 4e (though Pathfinder remains a contender in this area).
-It doesn't have the raw innovation of 13th Age, though it's more innovative then 3.x and less structured then 4e.
Or, to use Manchu's terms: it has too much crunch for people that hate crunch, and too little crunch for people that love crunch.
I played a Dwarven Wizard last night. Wizards add Proficiency bonus to INT and WIS saving throws. My WIS was 8, giving me a -1 modifier. Wisdom is useless to my gruff'n'tough Dwarf Wizard. I would much prefer Proficiency with STR or CON saving throws.
You think "house rule" means band aid. That is a board game mentality. In RPGs (and scenario-based war gaming), the better word is ruling. A ruling isn't about "fixing the game" so "it works." It is about customization and imagination. A RPG without rulings is Warhammer Quest, Descent, Myth, or, their more complicated cousin, D&D 4E.
You are right, however, that we agree that the Original. First, Second, Third, and Fifth Editions of D&D are ultimately incompatible with Fourth Edition.
So far, 5E is my favorite version of D&D. I have not and will not throw out any of my 4E stuff (finally snagged the DMK two weeks ago), because it is a wonderful skirmish game, but it's not what I call a good RPG.
Let's be honest, it was both. Also, when did WotC try to make 4E more like 3E? I hope you're not talking about Essentials because Essentials was nothing like 3E.
It wasn't exactly 3E, but you could see within the various abilities and characters they've added with it that they hearkened back to 3E such as the slayer.
Here's a question: anyone know where I can get a 10's d10 in the same style as the ones in the starter box? Sort of odd that they only include the one d10 with the single digits.
Dunno yet Infinite_array but I will be looking because I really like them. Will let you know if I find anything.
Here's an "actual play" example of how 5E supports tactical combat:
Last evening, we were facing down a lone, cornered goblin. Three of five PCs were pretty well up in its ugly green face and that sucker still managed to survive ... for a bit longer. It dashed through the legs of the Dwarf Fighter, my (reasonably tough) Dwarf Wizard, and the Human Fighter.
Thinking about this earlier tonight, it suddenly struck me that 5E incorporates Opportunity Attacks from 3E/4E. I figured the DM must have forgotten about them or quietly houseruled them out (perhaps in deference to his beloved '77 Basic D&D?) because we did not get to swing at the goblin as it deftly fled. Then I realized the goblin did not attack before moving past our PCs. Ah hah! He took a Disengage action to avoid provoking Opportunity Attacks for the rest of his movement. Whether the DM had this in mind or not, the resulting play was entirely consonant with the rules as written.
Importantly, the DM did not simply allow the goblin to move through our ranks without any trouble at all. He ruled that each PC take an opposing DEX check against the goblin to block his escape. It's just that we all failed because the DM rolled well and the goblin, quite reasonably, had a good DEX modifier (including beating my 17). Wondering if this was a rule or a ruling, I looked through the PDF and found "Contests in Combat" sidebar that indeed covers it, even if it only explicitly mentions Grappling and Shoving. So again, whether he intended it or not, the DM's call was a ruling in harmony with the rules.
At this point, I interjected that the goblin would surely not have enough movement to totally escape. In some corner or my mind, I suppose I must have remembered that Dash is an action and not a Bonus Action. The DM ruled that the goblin was just at the edge of getting away and, given the Initiative order, we therefore each had another shot at taking him down. Fortunately, the Human Fighter (an able bowman) put an arrow between its ears.
In other words, the goblin seized the tactical opportunities open to it and very nearly got away to warn and rally its despicable tribemates. And so did we, the PCs, seize our opportunity. Interestingly, all this happened with basically no "stepping out of the scene" to discuss rules. For my part, this is because the rules strike me as intuitive and the DM's rulings seemed both fair and made the combat more interesting. Something more than crushing one measly goblin was at stake, so tactics became an issue even if we didn't need to evoke the language of rules to make it happen.
@Ahtman, Buzzsaw, ZebioLizard2: you guys are our 4E fans, what do you think about this scenario?
@Alpharius: you are our 1E fan, what do you think?
It sure does seem 'old school' in feel and intention!
I'm getting more and more excited to give 5th a real good read through and possibly...try it out?!?
Thought to be honest, I'm the DM of my current AD&D group, and RPGs are one of those things that really can survive and somewhat 'thrive' even after the the game has released newer editions...
Agreed. The new edition doesn't erase the older rules. I still plan to play 4th again whenever people feel the itch for slow-moving tactical dungeon runs.
Manchu wrote: @Ahtman, Buzzsaw, ZebioLizard2: you guys are our 4E fans, what do you think about this scenario?
Aww... no love for me (to be fair, 4E is the ONLY edition of D&D that I know)
Anyhow... if you had merely explained the actions, it wouldn't make sense to me (especially as I haven't read any of the new PDFs), as in 4E there wasn't a "disengage" move that didn't provoke an attack of opportunity, but the explanations you provided make it sound very reasonable and not at all world breaking/rules lawyering or any other craziness.
I mean, it's a cool story but I agree that I'm not sure the question. Could you do that in pretty much any edition of D&D? Sure could. Was it smoother? Sounds like it may have been.
Yes, although the way you described it just sounds like any D&D game.
Also, I don't know that I identify myself as a 4E player. I did enjoy 4E and wholly moved to from 3.5 when it came out though, so maybe you do. I will probably wholly move to 5E when it comes out as well.
I will mention this now, I actually enjoyed 3E's mechanics and stuff, but I hated a few major things that cannot be gleamed from your combat.
1: Swinginess: From what I saw in the chart with some monsters, combat at level 1-3 still seems like 3.5 where a random dice will just kill you off without a care.
2: Balance: Will it be a team effort, or will casters dominate the field.
It'll be hard to tell without actually playing it myself, though there's a few other things I hope will be back, but they are minor in comparison (I'd like the warlord though, just out of spite)
pretre wrote: although the way you described it just sounds like any D&D game
Playing Basic/OSR D&D, there would be no Opportunity Attacks, Bonus Actions, Disengage, Dash, Combat Test mechanics, etc, etc. All of this would likely just be rulings made by the DM. In 3E/4E, we would have been gathered around the grid debating about the optimal strategy using all of those same mechanics.
In 5E, we used all of those 3E/4E mechanics without talking about them -- in effect, just like a Basic/OSR game. Indeed, the DM confirmed to me that he was not consciously using the rules, just making calls that seemed reasonable and fun. To me, this shows that 5E is pretty successful at unifying gameplay across editions.
Our resident 4E fan complained the next day that "the beautiful tactical combat is gone." I am wondering if the 4E fans of Dakka also see it that way, given my example.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: 1: Swinginess: From what I saw in the chart with some monsters, combat at level 1-3 still seems like 3.5 where a random dice will just kill you off without a care.
You start with max HP for your HD plus CON modifier. And 5E incorporates death saves from 4E. But yeah, you can get laid low by a single attack at low levels. Unless your character is invincible, isn't this always an issue?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: 2: Balance: Will it be a team effort, or will casters dominate the field.
Can you unpack what you mean by "casters dominate"?
Manchu wrote: Playing Basic/OSR D&D, there would be no Opportunity Attacks, Bonus Actions, Disengage, Dash, Combat Test mechanics, etc, etc. All of this would likely just be rulings made by the DM. In 3E/4E, we would have been gathered around the grid debating about the optimal strategy using all of those same mechanics.
In 5E, we used all of those 3E/4E mechanics without talking about them -- in effect, just like a Basic/OSR game. Indeed, the DM confirmed to me that he was not consciously using the rules, just making calls that seemed reasonable and fun. To me, this shows that 5E is pretty successful at unifying gameplay across editions.
Our resident 4E fan complained the next day that "the beautiful tactical combat is gone." I am wondering if the 4E fans of Dakka also see it that way, given my example.
It sounds more like the DM/Players were just comfortable with the mechanics. I mean, I guess I'll try it and maybe it'll just snap together, but it doesn't look any different than any other edition for how intuitive it is.
It seemed fine to me, but I also like AD&D. Sure I liked 4e, but it isn't the only thing I liked. So far it seems like an interesting mix of AD&D and bits of 3/4. Until I actually get to play it, as well as read the full on PHB, it will be hard to say much more. Well, I still feel martial characters were perhaps regressed a bit to much, but that might change.
Can you unpack what you mean by "casters dominate"?
Casters in 3.5 as you may have understood it have the LFQW issue, where fighters gain only X certain things while Spell-casters become versatile masters able to perform the roles of the 'Martial' (Used in this case to refer to things such as classes in general without casting ability)
Not to mention even at the lower levels where spells like 'Sleep', 'Grease', where you could summon monsters to perform the work of a 'Fighting-Man' class. Where most things that become far more threatening are those with Spells or Spell Like abilities because those are far more versatile and more powerful then anything in the 'martial' class group.
I played a Dwarven Wizard last night. Wizards add Proficiency bonus to INT and WIS saving throws. My WIS was 8, giving me a -1 modifier. Wisdom is useless to my gruff'n'tough Dwarf Wizard. I would much prefer Proficiency with STR or CON saving throws.
You think "house rule" means band aid. That is a board game mentality. In RPGs (and scenario-based war gaming), the better word is ruling. A ruling isn't about "fixing the game" so "it works." It is about customization and imagination. A RPG without rulings is Warhammer Quest, Descent, Myth, or, their more complicated cousin, D&D 4E.
You are right, however, that we agree that the Original. First, Second, Third, and Fifth Editions of D&D are ultimately incompatible with Fourth Edition.
So far, 5E is my favorite version of D&D. I have not and will not throw out any of my 4E stuff (finally snagged the DMK two weeks ago), because it is a wonderful skirmish game, but it's not what I call a good RPG.
I honestly thought you were trolling me. The argument seemed so self referential, so semantic that it had to be a joke, Or an attempt at picking a fight. I realize now, that's not at all the case.
What's happening is that our perspectives are so divergent that there are things that you find good and well done, that I find tedious and inept.
A phrase is going around, attributed to the 5e lead Mike Mearls; "rulings, not rules."
It's clear that this idea appeals to many people (including Manchu, it seems fair to say). I find it encapsulates most of what I find irritating and slapdash about old style rules design (and in fairness, current style rules design for GW, heh).
Let's go through the example, because I think it is a crystal clear case of "rulings, not rules".
Manchu wrote: Dunno yet Infinite_array but I will be looking because I really like them. Will let you know if I find anything.
Here's an "actual play" example of how 5E supports tactical combat:
Last evening, we were facing down a lone, cornered goblin. Three of five PCs were pretty well up in its ugly green face and that sucker still managed to survive ... for a bit longer. It dashed through the legs of the Dwarf Fighter, my (reasonably tough) Dwarf Wizard, and the Human Fighter.
Thinking about this earlier tonight, it suddenly struck me that 5E incorporates Opportunity Attacks from 3E/4E. I figured the DM must have forgotten about them or quietly houseruled them out (perhaps in deference to his beloved '77 Basic D&D?) because we did not get to swing at the goblin as it deftly fled. Then I realized the goblin did not attack before moving past our PCs. Ah hah! He took a Disengage action to avoid provoking Opportunity Attacks for the rest of his movement. Whether the DM had this in mind or not, the resulting play was entirely consonant with the rules as written.
Importantly, the DM did not simply allow the goblin to move through our ranks without any trouble at all. He ruled that each PC take an opposing DEX check against the goblin to block his escape. It's just that we all failed because the DM rolled well and the goblin, quite reasonably, had a good DEX modifier (including beating my 17). Wondering if this was a rule or a ruling, I looked through the PDF and found "Contests in Combat" sidebar that indeed covers it, even if it only explicitly mentions Grappling and Shoving. So again, whether he intended it or not, the DM's call was a ruling in harmony with the rules.
At this point, I interjected that the goblin would surely not have enough movement to totally escape. In some corner or my mind, I suppose I must have remembered that Dash is an action and not a Bonus Action. The DM ruled that the goblin was just at the edge of getting away and, given the Initiative order, we therefore each had another shot at taking him down. Fortunately, the Human Fighter (an able bowman) put an arrow between its ears.
In other words, the goblin seized the tactical opportunities open to it and very nearly got away to warn and rally its despicable tribemates. And so did we, the PCs, seize our opportunity. Interestingly, all this happened with basically no "stepping out of the scene" to discuss rules. For my part, this is because the rules strike me as intuitive and the DM's rulings seemed both fair and made the combat more interesting. Something more than crushing one measly goblin was at stake, so tactics became an issue even if we didn't need to evoke the language of rules to make it happen.
@Alpharius: you are our 1E fan, what do you think?
The very first thing to note is that this use of tactical here is very different then the use of tactical in 4e: tactical doesn't just mean a wealth of options (all editions allow the "DM may I" play), it means a formality, so that people aren't guessing what they are and are not allowed to do or reliant on DM fiat.
The second thing is that the Disengage action* is misused... if indeed it is used at all! by the way, that's one thing that I should note here; I'm rather confused as to what is and is not the DM's actual rationalization for what happened, and what you interpret the DM's rationale to be.
Moving on from that the biggest issue is that (assuming those are the actual rationals), the DM seems to have broken the rules, quite a few times.
-To start, the goblin disengages. Terrible rule, but whatever.
-Goblin takes the dash action. Fair enough, he has his movement left.
-Goblin moves through occupied squares making between 3-5 opposed grapple/dex checks. Whaaaa? The goblin is out of actions already; it's entirely reasonably to make grapple checks in combat, it's not however reasonable to make multiple grapple checks during a move action.
The described sequence of events represents one goblin taking between 5 and 7 discrete actions on his turn, which is where the tactics have simply died.
Like I said, this is a perfect example of ruling not rules, and it would piss me off so much: first, because the DM has opened a huge can of worms.
So an opposed dex/grapple check when used to allow movement through squares is not an action itself and, in conjunction with the disengage action, let's one run right through people.
Either a) he didn't think about this and so will never let you do the same, or b) rogues are now magic. Seriously, rogues get Cunning Action at level 2, which (among other things) grants a free use every turn of... disengage. Now it's clear from that rule that rogues are meant to be hard to pin down. But this would make then borderline impossible.
The second thing is: look how many times you had to basically guess what was going on, and how it limited what the players could do in favor of what the DM could do.
The goblin takes actions that allow one thing, but then does another: disengage protects you from OA's during a move action. The DM simply decides that the goblin moving through occupied squares is part of the move action, so you don't get to do anything about it.
If we look at this from the 4e perspective, how would that combat have gone?
A) Goblin shifts to an unthreatened square and take a second move action to run.
B) Goblin has an ability that allows him to shift through occupied squares.
C) Goblin uses acrobatics as a standard action to move through an occupied square, then shifts or runs.
My point there is that at no time is it unclear why the goblin is able to do what he is doing, nor is it unclear what the players are allowed to do as a reaction.
*As an aside, it's worth pointing out that the Disengage action in and of itself eliminates so much tactical depth it's stupefying. The impact of giving up your attack and then being able to move past anyone/anything is
@pretre: As far as being intuitive, keep in mind this was the very first time any of us had played 5E. My first sessions of 3E and 4E were not so smooth. TBH, neither were my first sessions of Basic or S&W.
@Ahtman: No more BBQs for you until you back up this regression claim.
Buzzsaw wrote: What's happening is that our perspectives are so divergent that there are things that you find good and well done, that I find tedious and inept.
Yep, I've been explaining that ITT for something like a month or more.
Buzzsaw wrote: A phrase is going around, attributed to the 5e lead Mike Mearls; "rulings, not rules."
In recent times, this was the rallying cry of the OSR -- most famously put to ink in our times by Matt Finch ca. 2008. It goes back to the 1970s of course, when it was implicit. The couterposition "rules, not rulings" has its roots in AD&D 2E (most infamously in the Players Option books) and found its most coherent, militant expression in 4E.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Buzzsaw:
It seems you figured out that Disengage lets you avoid provoking OAs altogether for the rest of your turn so that's a lot of your argument right there. As for each opposed DEX check being an action ... I completely disagree. To put it mechanically, those tests were the PCs' reactions -- specifically in lieu of OAs.
Anyhow, what this really comes down to is what you call "DM fiat." It seems to me this drags along a very specific concept of fairness and therefore an equally specific vision of the game. Fairness is a part of nearly all games but it is particularly important in competitions. It seems clear that you see D&D in competitive terms, which is why balance is so important. For example, regarding the opposed DEX tests, you suggest the DM
Buzzsaw wrote: didn't think about this and so will never let you do the same
Why does it matter if the DM lets us do the same thing? He hasn't established a rule, valid always and everywhere for everyone. He's made a ruling about what was going on then and there in that particular moment. We are not playing against the DM. He's the referee and narrator. He's there to sort out the consequences of whatever we attempt to do with a bias toward whatever the particular group finds reasonable and fun.
You seem to be worried that without clear, universal rules, the DM will have no problem "beating" the players and I guess in that sense somehow "winning." And it's not even a problem that the DM could win so much as that he would win too easily or by cheating ("fiat").
ZebioLizard2 wrote: the LFQW issue, where fighters gain only X certain things while Spell-casters become versatile masters able to perform the roles of [non-casters]
First, I think LFQW is about damage output. But yes, 3E definitely had the problem that higher level casters had spells that mimicked or mooted non-caster class abilities. I have not seen this problem in the Basic PDF yet.
BUT
Magic by its very definition defies the laws of nature. In any world with magic along these lines, the most skilled magic users will always be more powerful than everyone else for the very reason that they get to break the laws of nature while nobody else does. 3E's answer was to make everyone a magic user, via prestige classes. 4E's answer was to reduce magic to a well-defined system of superpowers and then give functionally equivalent superpowers to a set of classes called "martial."
Manchu wrote: @Ahtman: No more BBQs for you until you back up this regression claim.
You could start by comparing the number of pages devoted to combat maneuvers for martial characters to the number of pages to spells. To beat it the spells would need to take up just 1 page, but it has far more than that. Sure there are class features, but wizards and clerics also get class features. Much of the Book of Nine Sword and 4E martial options seemed to have just up and disappeared.
Buzzsaw wrote: What's happening is that our perspectives are so divergent that there are things that you find good and well done, that I find tedious and inept.
Yep, I've been explaining that ITT for something like a month or more.
With due respect, then why do you persist in asking questions for which you already know the answer? Your friend who said "the beautiful tactical combat is gone" is completely correct.
"Disengage lets you avoid provoking OAs altogether for the rest of your turn so that's a lot of your argument right there." No it doesn't. "If you take the Disengage action, your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks for the rest of the turn." Since my point is that moving through an occupied square is very different form simple movement, which is what the rules cover, my point is the DM decided he wanted to do something and simply did it.
"You seem to be worried that without clear, universal rules, the DM will have no problem "beating" the players and I guess in that sense somehow "winning."" I say this with all due gentleness: please stop trying to guess at my feelings, you are really bad at it.
I am no more "worried" about this in the manner you suggest then a man that wants vanilla ice cream can be said to be "worried" there won't be enough vanilla in the chocolate ice cream he has just been served by accident. He's not worried, it's just not what he wants.
The fundamentals of tactics in 4e are a philosophical and mechanical certainty that, as a part, removes the issue of "DM fiat", but also empowers all the players (including the DM) by removing lack of clarity. So...
Manchu wrote: ...So would you guys say it seems like 4E players are not totally left in the cold?
To say that 4e players are left in the cold is to misstate it: 4e players are actively antagonized by elements of 5e.
Manchu wrote: @Ahtman: No more BBQs for you until you back up this regression claim.
You could start by comparing the number of pages devoted to combat maneuvers for martial characters to the number of pages to spells. To beat it the spells would need to take up just 1 page, but it has far more than that. Sure there are class features, but wizards and clerics also get class features. Much of the Book of Nine Sword and 4E martial options seemed to have just up and disappeared.
Page numbers? Those are rules in a book. The game in the book is not about rules in the book, it's about the rulings on the table about the rules in the book. You are therefore ruling an issue about rules in a book when it should be a ruling about rulings about rules in a book, can you please re-frame your ruling to be a ruling about rulings about rules in a book without being about rules in a book rather than a rulings about rules in a book.
EDIT: That's my ruling about your ruling at least. It isn't a rule in a book, that isn't what this is about. Feel free to have your own ruling of my ruling of your ruling of his ruling of their ruling of rules. I'm sure we're really all on the same page here.
I'm going to read the PDF tomorrow and judge for myself. Number one thing I'm looking for is: Can I create the kinds of characters I can imagine. For me, 4th ed was too stiffling, structured and basic to suit my tastes. It felt like one step up from a pre-made character and somehow all the characters felt the same.
I'm looking for rules that inspire role playing, like characters that buck the trend or come out of left field.
My favorite book of 3rd was "Savage Species." My best character ever was a Medusa archer. That's what I'm looking for.
If the game can make my imagination run, then I'll buy it.
First, I think LFQW is about damage output. But yes, 3E definitely had the problem that higher level casters had spells that mimicked or mooted non-caster class abilities. I have not seen this problem in the Basic PDF yet.
If you think it's about damage output then you really don't know much about it, infact Evocation Casters were the worst of the lot, considering all the Save or Die spells, the utility spells, the overall general use spells, along with said spells that made other classes useless.
If you want a good understanding, take a look at this page and scroll down to tabletop games.
5th edition is trying to do this in an interesting way. While Vancian magic with at-wills is coming back for the Wizard, Fighters are getting a new mechanic called "Combat Expertise" where they gain extra damage dice as they level up, but can exchange those dice for adding extra effects to their attacks, such as stunning or pushing enemies, making them more versatile with a sort of build-your-own-maneuver system. In addition, the designers have stated that they intend to make martial abilities equivalent to magical ones, and that they work better in synergy, I.E. a rogue's stealth works as well as an invisibility spell, but when they are combined the rogue becomes essentially a stealth god for a while.
The rest of it as a wall of text
Spoiler:
Dungeons & Dragons:
The actual point at which wizards overtake fighters is somewhere between level one (when they get color spray) and level five (when they get flight, fireball and haste), depending on who you ask. Either way, at low levels attack spells are both too weak and too few, the main advantages are in buff, incapacitation, area denial or utility magic. It also depends on the type of encounter — one strong opponent or many weaklings. Another problem is that as primary casters gain levels, they gain access to spells that allow them to do pretty much anything. A Wizard, Cleric, or Druid with access to the huge list of spells published for them can fill almost any party role — often better than the classes designed for that role — while a fighter gains variations and slight improvements on "hit enemy with stick". At level 17, they can pull some god-like stunts, with the ability to shapechange at will for limited periods, stop time, and even create entirely new planes of existence. Meanwhile, Fighters can hit things harder and faster and take more punishment. Additionally, a major issue is that at low levels, wizards have weaker spells (mostly) and can cast them fewer times before needing to rest. As they level up, they both get more uses of lower-level spells and access to higher-level spells with their own usage slots, meaning that a high level wizard is unlikely to ever run out of basic utility magic, while also having access to outrageously powerful effects that can resolve encounters on their own. On top of this, the better low-level spells scale in power as you go up in level, meaning that wizards gain more usages of more powerful magic as they go up in level — their power literally increasing quadratically. Originally, the intent of D&D was that the common man was a Fighter and he would be more powerful at low level, but someone who performed magic (a Cleric or Magic-User) would make sacrifices at low level to become more powerful at high level. But this was further balanced by Fighters getting the best followers at high level (and at the time, henchmen were quite valuable even if they were low-level), and because Fighters were the only ones who could use magic swords. The majority (60%+) of magic swords were intelligent and carried special spell-like powers. Since a Fighter was the only one who could wield one, those found in treasure would usually end up in his hands. This limited spell-like ability made up for the Fighter having no spells of his own. Fighting Men progressed at a faster rate than Magic Users. The difference in XP progression was later (3.0+) deemed ineffective, largely due to when game designers learned basic math and common sense. They realized that given the same amount of EXP the wizard was at best one level behind the fighter, and later actually progressed faster. Getting rid of this also fixed broken multiclasses. It is notable that throughout AD&D all the way to D&D 3.5, a solid majority of non-player characters higher than 20th level were wizards. Indeed, careful scrutiny of various game books reveals that they outnumber similarly high-level NPC's from all other classes combined. AD&D has rules about followers, so a high-level warrior can easily attract a small army. Sadly, it was often ignored, especially since it required the character to own a keep. Warriors also got Hit Points from high Constitution while wizards didn't. AD&D2 class XP awards, quite sensibly, altered class balance depending on the game style: in relatively peaceful ones, utility spellcasting allows wizards and priests a little XP all the time, in war/dungeon warriors get XP bonus for each defeated opponent. Dark Sun setting specifics eased it in that high-level warriors' followers are easier to use in an adventure, while wizards are feared and hated by just about everybody thanks to the fact that arcane magic in Dark Sun sucks the life out of everything around the spellcaster. Widespread psionics doesn't quite replace wizardry, as it's more useful against one tough opponent rather than many weaker ones. Most area effects are taxing, unreliable, centered on psionicist and indiscriminate: either plunge into crowd of foes alone for 3 rounds and risk fainting there or knock out your bodyguard(s) with Ultrablast just like everyone else in 50’. Special powerful creatures could then resist the new unresistable spells. Of course a spell to temporarily reduce a creature's Magic Resistance soon developed... Yes, another way that earlier editions of D&D dealt with this problem was giving a lot of the more powerful monsters (the kind high-level adventurers would be facing) magic resistance (called anti-magic in some of the early editions). Even relatively low magic resistance could really ruin a caster's day, because, first, magic resistance was a flat percentage, meaning that it didn't matter how powerful a caster you were, your spells still had the same chance of failing completely, and, second, because there were no spells that could directly penetrate resistance. Third edition radically nerfed magic resistance into spell resistance by changing those two things: powerful casters are more likely to penetrate spell resistance, and there were a number of spells that could simply ignore it (the orb spells were incredibly broken, partly for this reason) The new problem with wizards introduced by D&D3+ is that instead of having spellcasting interrupted by any hit, passing a Concentration skill check can fix this. This would be less of a big deal if skills weren't so easy to boost in 3.5ed. In 3rd Edition and 3.5, this applies to spellcasting classes in general with a sufficiently large and varied spell list. Clerics and Druids in particular led to the coining of the phrase "CoDzilla" (Cleric-or-Druid-zilla), as if a powergamer looks at the class the right way, they see class features more powerful than entire other classes. The Druid's Animal Companion is equivalent if not better than an entire Fighter in combat at level 1, making them superior even at low levels. The companion doesn't scale as fast as a Fighter, but given the exponential scaling of spells which a Druid also gets full access to, it doesn't really matter. The history here is a bit muddled. Clerics (or Priests in earlier editions) always had access to good armors, but no good offensive abilities, magical or martial. The common complaint is that they couldn't do anything well except heal and maybe tank a little, so they were given huge upgrades in both their magical abilities and their martial abilities (generally requiring magical augmentation) in 3rd edition. At first glance this didn't appear unbalanced, especially since most players would tend to either heal all the time anyways or make reasonably effective (but not to the point of replacing Fighters) melee fighters. The real brokenness comes in two flavors. First, creative uses of certain spells and feats (such as the aforementioned Divine Metamagic: Persist Spell) allowed spellcasters in general to break the game wide open. Second, even if you restrained these ridiculous abuses Clerics (and Druids) ended up by far the most versatile class, easily switching from tank, to healer, to controller etc. thanks to the incredible versatility and power of spells in third edition. In general, Wizards and Sorcerors get access to more powerful spells, but Clerics and Druids automatically know every single class spell ever printed for free. CoDZilla's built in melee ability is the reason they are largely regarded as stronger than Wizards and Sorcerers. If you allow all the insanity arcane spellcasters are stronger, especially with the Prestige Classes like Incantatrix, a class ludicrously powerful even by optimized Wizard standards, which basically lets you pull all the tricks Clerics can do with Divine Metamagic except better, more often, and in several different ways, and Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil — aka You Don't Get Hit Ever: The Class. However, even if your DM restricts those abuses CoDZilla is very strong. This was fixed in 4th edition, but at the cost of removing most of the abilities spellcasters previously had. Notably, Evil-aligned Clerics tend to make better Necromancers than Necromancers themselves. A specialized Wizard must surrender the ability to cast spells from two other schools of Arcane magic in order to receive said specialization, which confers only one extra spell from their specialized school per day and a +2 bonus to Spellcraft checks. Evil clerics, solely so that the mechanic that the ability of a Good-aligned (or, rather, Positive Energy-channeling) Cleric to turn or destroy undead has its Evil Counterpart, to rebuke or COMMAND undead. Most incorporeal undead also have a standard touch attack that afflicts ability drain, which can be a Game Breaker even at higher levels. What's worse? Some undead create spawn... and control it. Like Wraith . Druids are another example, able to combine the devastating Natural Spell feat with their animal forms, allowing them a melee presence on par with the strongest warriors while losing none of their casting power. Worse, at higher levels they can change form several times a day; morph into an eagle, rain lightning and fire on the enemy from safely out of reach, land, morph into a dire bear, wade into melee—and all while their animal companion is busy doing the fighter's job. Heck, druids are even ridiculous at level one. Produce flame + Animal Companion with multiple attacks = Ouch. The supplement Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords caters to those who prefer their warrior-types more superhuman. The Tome of Battle classes have received a mixed reception. It's either a step in the right direction, or growing existing Animesque trend into "anime fan Fightan Magic", or melee combatants' rebalance simply doesn't change much in comparison to CoDzilla or Wizards in the first place. Averted in 4th edition, which defines "martial powers" alongside "arcane powers" and "divine powers" — the warrior-types get more powerful abilities as they go up in level, too, and balance was a key goal. A lot of complaints that the game is no longer D&D or has turned into a video game on paper. You may have noticed above that Tome of Battle way of circumventing this problem was far from unanimously accepted even without extra radical changes. As shown in one of their cartoons, Wizards doesn't think much of the people who make complaints like this. As is routine, min/maxers did what they do best and found the Game Breakers. The balance was achieved by making wizards and fighters not just equivalent in power but mechanically very similar. Both classes essentially had lists of powers that did a damage effect to an area, a target or multiple targets and there might be a movement effect or a buff/debuff attached, with little thought given to how any of it made sense from a narrative perspective (how does hitting enemy A with your sword move ally B 3 squares? It doesn't matter, its balanced.) While someone starting 4th edition would see the differences between the classes as being sufficiently, previous editions gave the two classes such different mechanical flavors that many fans looking at the initial 4th edition line up found the differences meaningless. This is where the complaints come in. It doesn't help that they made the Wizard the least powerful class in 4th ed starting out (before later supplements balanced it back out.) This was supposed to be balanced out by ritual magic which was where most of the utility spells went but the early ritual spell options were so costly for so little effect it was hardly ever worth casting them. One key part of this is that 4E provides a basic standard power progression through the levels for all classes and that all classes advance at the same rate (the last point already held true in 3rd edition, but it's worth re-emphasizing). Specific added class or racial feature powers aside, every fifth-level character for example will have two first-level at-will, a first- and a third-level per-encounter, a first- and a fifth-level daily, and a second-level utility power at its core, period. Moreover, the effects of most individual powers remain largely fixed now instead of growing automatically more powerful with increasing character level, as often used to be the case with spells in earlier editions; the exceptions are mainly some class abilities that can't be swapped out for other powers in the course of the character's career as "standard" powers can, and the fact that the basic damage output of at-will attacks — which unlike encounter and daily powers don't come in levels higher than first — finally doubles upon reaching 21st (!) level in order to keep them competitive. Unfortunately, this started breaking with Player's Handbook 3, which started to shear away from the standard level progression, and shattered with the "essentials" line, which returned to the older model of having unique progressions for every class and making martial classes "simpler" to play...which obviated one of the major points of 4th Edition to begin with. 5th edition is trying to do this in an interesting way. While Vancian magic with at-wills is coming back for the Wizard, Fighters are getting a new mechanic called "Combat Expertise" where they gain extra damage dice as they level up, but can exchange those dice for adding extra effects to their attacks, such as stunning or pushing enemies, making them more versatile with a sort of build-your-own-maneuver system. In addition, the designers have stated that they intend to make martial abilities equivalent to magical ones, and that they work better in synergy, I.E. a rogue's stealth works as well as an invisibility spell, but when they are combined the rogue becomes essentially a stealth god for a while.
5th edition is trying to do this in an interesting way. While Vancian magic with at-wills is coming back for the Wizard, Fighters are getting a new mechanic called "Combat Expertise" where they gain extra damage dice as they level up, but can exchange those dice for adding extra effects to their attacks, such as stunning or pushing enemies, making them more versatile with a sort of build-your-own-maneuver system. In addition, the designers have stated that they intend to make martial abilities equivalent to magical ones, and that they work better in synergy, I.E. a rogue's stealth works as well as an invisibility spell, but when they are combined the rogue becomes essentially a stealth god for a while.
The rest of it as a wall of text
Spoiler:
Dungeons & Dragons:
The actual point at which wizards overtake fighters is somewhere between level one (when they get color spray) and level five (when they get flight, fireball and haste), depending on who you ask. Either way, at low levels attack spells are both too weak and too few, the main advantages are in buff, incapacitation, area denial or utility magic. It also depends on the type of encounter — one strong opponent or many weaklings.
Another problem is that as primary casters gain levels, they gain access to spells that allow them to do pretty much anything. A Wizard, Cleric, or Druid with access to the huge list of spells published for them can fill almost any party role — often better than the classes designed for that role — while a fighter gains variations and slight improvements on "hit enemy with stick". At level 17, they can pull some god-like stunts, with the ability to shapechange at will for limited periods, stop time, and even create entirely new planes of existence. Meanwhile, Fighters can hit things harder and faster and take more punishment.
Additionally, a major issue is that at low levels, wizards have weaker spells (mostly) and can cast them fewer times before needing to rest. As they level up, they both get more uses of lower-level spells and access to higher-level spells with their own usage slots, meaning that a high level wizard is unlikely to ever run out of basic utility magic, while also having access to outrageously powerful effects that can resolve encounters on their own. On top of this, the better low-level spells scale in power as you go up in level, meaning that wizards gain more usages of more powerful magic as they go up in level — their power literally increasing quadratically.
Originally, the intent of D&D was that the common man was a Fighter and he would be more powerful at low level, but someone who performed magic (a Cleric or Magic-User) would make sacrifices at low level to become more powerful at high level. But this was further balanced by Fighters getting the best followers at high level (and at the time, henchmen were quite valuable even if they were low-level), and because Fighters were the only ones who could use magic swords. The majority (60%+) of magic swords were intelligent and carried special spell-like powers. Since a Fighter was the only one who could wield one, those found in treasure would usually end up in his hands. This limited spell-like ability made up for the Fighter having no spells of his own.
Fighting Men progressed at a faster rate than Magic Users. The difference in XP progression was later (3.0+) deemed ineffective, largely due to when game designers learned basic math and common sense. They realized that given the same amount of EXP the wizard was at best one level behind the fighter, and later actually progressed faster. Getting rid of this also fixed broken multiclasses.
It is notable that throughout AD&D all the way to D&D 3.5, a solid majority of non-player characters higher than 20th level were wizards. Indeed, careful scrutiny of various game books reveals that they outnumber similarly high-level NPC's from all other classes combined.
AD&D has rules about followers, so a high-level warrior can easily attract a small army. Sadly, it was often ignored, especially since it required the character to own a keep. Warriors also got Hit Points from high Constitution while wizards didn't. AD&D2 class XP awards, quite sensibly, altered class balance depending on the game style: in relatively peaceful ones, utility spellcasting allows wizards and priests a little XP all the time, in war/dungeon warriors get XP bonus for each defeated opponent.
Dark Sun setting specifics eased it in that high-level warriors' followers are easier to use in an adventure, while wizards are feared and hated by just about everybody thanks to the fact that arcane magic in Dark Sun sucks the life out of everything around the spellcaster. Widespread psionics doesn't quite replace wizardry, as it's more useful against one tough opponent rather than many weaker ones. Most area effects are taxing, unreliable, centered on psionicist and indiscriminate: either plunge into crowd of foes alone for 3 rounds and risk fainting there or knock out your bodyguard(s) with Ultrablast just like everyone else in 50’.
Special powerful creatures could then resist the new unresistable spells. Of course a spell to temporarily reduce a creature's Magic Resistance soon developed...
Yes, another way that earlier editions of D&D dealt with this problem was giving a lot of the more powerful monsters (the kind high-level adventurers would be facing) magic resistance (called anti-magic in some of the early editions). Even relatively low magic resistance could really ruin a caster's day, because, first, magic resistance was a flat percentage, meaning that it didn't matter how powerful a caster you were, your spells still had the same chance of failing completely, and, second, because there were no spells that could directly penetrate resistance. Third edition radically nerfed magic resistance into spell resistance by changing those two things: powerful casters are more likely to penetrate spell resistance, and there were a number of spells that could simply ignore it (the orb spells were incredibly broken, partly for this reason)
The new problem with wizards introduced by D&D3+ is that instead of having spellcasting interrupted by any hit, passing a Concentration skill check can fix this. This would be less of a big deal if skills weren't so easy to boost in 3.5ed.
In 3rd Edition and 3.5, this applies to spellcasting classes in general with a sufficiently large and varied spell list. Clerics and Druids in particular led to the coining of the phrase "CoDzilla" (Cleric-or-Druid-zilla), as if a powergamer looks at the class the right way, they see class features more powerful than entire other classes.
The Druid's Animal Companion is equivalent if not better than an entire Fighter in combat at level 1, making them superior even at low levels. The companion doesn't scale as fast as a Fighter, but given the exponential scaling of spells which a Druid also gets full access to, it doesn't really matter.
The history here is a bit muddled. Clerics (or Priests in earlier editions) always had access to good armors, but no good offensive abilities, magical or martial. The common complaint is that they couldn't do anything well except heal and maybe tank a little, so they were given huge upgrades in both their magical abilities and their martial abilities (generally requiring magical augmentation) in 3rd edition. At first glance this didn't appear unbalanced, especially since most players would tend to either heal all the time anyways or make reasonably effective (but not to the point of replacing Fighters) melee fighters. The real brokenness comes in two flavors. First, creative uses of certain spells and feats (such as the aforementioned Divine Metamagic: Persist Spell) allowed spellcasters in general to break the game wide open. Second, even if you restrained these ridiculous abuses Clerics (and Druids) ended up by far the most versatile class, easily switching from tank, to healer, to controller etc. thanks to the incredible versatility and power of spells in third edition. In general, Wizards and Sorcerors get access to more powerful spells, but Clerics and Druids automatically know every single class spell ever printed for free. CoDZilla's built in melee ability is the reason they are largely regarded as stronger than Wizards and Sorcerers. If you allow all the insanity arcane spellcasters are stronger, especially with the Prestige Classes like Incantatrix, a class ludicrously powerful even by optimized Wizard standards, which basically lets you pull all the tricks Clerics can do with Divine Metamagic except better, more often, and in several different ways, and Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil — aka You Don't Get Hit Ever: The Class. However, even if your DM restricts those abuses CoDZilla is very strong. This was fixed in 4th edition, but at the cost of removing most of the abilities spellcasters previously had.
Notably, Evil-aligned Clerics tend to make better Necromancers than Necromancers themselves. A specialized Wizard must surrender the ability to cast spells from two other schools of Arcane magic in order to receive said specialization, which confers only one extra spell from their specialized school per day and a +2 bonus to Spellcraft checks. Evil clerics, solely so that the mechanic that the ability of a Good-aligned (or, rather, Positive Energy-channeling) Cleric to turn or destroy undead has its Evil Counterpart, to rebuke or COMMAND undead. Most incorporeal undead also have a standard touch attack that afflicts ability drain, which can be a Game Breaker even at higher levels. What's worse? Some undead create spawn... and control it. Like Wraith .
Druids are another example, able to combine the devastating Natural Spell feat with their animal forms, allowing them a melee presence on par with the strongest warriors while losing none of their casting power. Worse, at higher levels they can change form several times a day; morph into an eagle, rain lightning and fire on the enemy from safely out of reach, land, morph into a dire bear, wade into melee—and all while their animal companion is busy doing the fighter's job. Heck, druids are even ridiculous at level one. Produce flame + Animal Companion with multiple attacks = Ouch.
The supplement Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords caters to those who prefer their warrior-types more superhuman. The Tome of Battle classes have received a mixed reception. It's either a step in the right direction, or growing existing Animesque trend into "anime fan Fightan Magic", or melee combatants' rebalance simply doesn't change much in comparison to CoDzilla or Wizards in the first place.
Averted in 4th edition, which defines "martial powers" alongside "arcane powers" and "divine powers" — the warrior-types get more powerful abilities as they go up in level, too, and balance was a key goal. A lot of complaints that the game is no longer D&D or has turned into a video game on paper. You may have noticed above that Tome of Battle way of circumventing this problem was far from unanimously accepted even without extra radical changes. As shown in one of their cartoons, Wizards doesn't think much of the people who make complaints like this. As is routine, min/maxers did what they do best and found the Game Breakers.
The balance was achieved by making wizards and fighters not just equivalent in power but mechanically very similar. Both classes essentially had lists of powers that did a damage effect to an area, a target or multiple targets and there might be a movement effect or a buff/debuff attached, with little thought given to how any of it made sense from a narrative perspective (how does hitting enemy A with your sword move ally B 3 squares? It doesn't matter, its balanced.) While someone starting 4th edition would see the differences between the classes as being sufficiently, previous editions gave the two classes such different mechanical flavors that many fans looking at the initial 4th edition line up found the differences meaningless. This is where the complaints come in. It doesn't help that they made the Wizard the least powerful class in 4th ed starting out (before later supplements balanced it back out.) This was supposed to be balanced out by ritual magic which was where most of the utility spells went but the early ritual spell options were so costly for so little effect it was hardly ever worth casting them.
One key part of this is that 4E provides a basic standard power progression through the levels for all classes and that all classes advance at the same rate (the last point already held true in 3rd edition, but it's worth re-emphasizing). Specific added class or racial feature powers aside, every fifth-level character for example will have two first-level at-will, a first- and a third-level per-encounter, a first- and a fifth-level daily, and a second-level utility power at its core, period. Moreover, the effects of most individual powers remain largely fixed now instead of growing automatically more powerful with increasing character level, as often used to be the case with spells in earlier editions; the exceptions are mainly some class abilities that can't be swapped out for other powers in the course of the character's career as "standard" powers can, and the fact that the basic damage output of at-will attacks — which unlike encounter and daily powers don't come in levels higher than first — finally doubles upon reaching 21st (!) level in order to keep them competitive. Unfortunately, this started breaking with Player's Handbook 3, which started to shear away from the standard level progression, and shattered with the "essentials" line, which returned to the older model of having unique progressions for every class and making martial classes "simpler" to play...which obviated one of the major points of 4th Edition to begin with.
5th edition is trying to do this in an interesting way. While Vancian magic with at-wills is coming back for the Wizard, Fighters are getting a new mechanic called "Combat Expertise" where they gain extra damage dice as they level up, but can exchange those dice for adding extra effects to their attacks, such as stunning or pushing enemies, making them more versatile with a sort of build-your-own-maneuver system. In addition, the designers have stated that they intend to make martial abilities equivalent to magical ones, and that they work better in synergy, I.E. a rogue's stealth works as well as an invisibility spell, but when they are combined the rogue becomes essentially a stealth god for a while.
There is a Reason why I didn't quote any of that in this actual page.
Buzzsaw wrote: With due respect, then why do you persist in asking questions for which you already know the answer?
That's a good question. There is nothing wrong with playing D&D as if it were super chess. Hell, I like it, too, even though it specifically excludes the thing RPGs bring to the table that other games mostly cannot; i.e., the extraordinary freedom. But yes, sometimes I really want to play something crunchy and sharply defined. But I find cooperative board games more effective in scratching the itch -- yes, they are so much less complex but they also take so much less time than 4E.
Buzzsaw wrote: Since my point is that moving through an occupied square is very different form simple movement, which is what the rules cover, my point is the DM decided he wanted to do something and simply did it.
First, yes the DM decided what he wanted to do and did it. Second, what he did was completely in line with the rules.
Third, there are no such things as "occupied squares" in our game. We aren't playing super chess so there are no squares at all. Our characters are not pawns on a board. They are people experiencing a story in a setting. That experience arises from known quantities (mechanics) smashing into unknown ones (randomness). That's pretty standard for table top games but what makes our game different is the setting is too complex to be perfectly described in every aspect at every level of granularity by a predetermined rule set. And even if it was that simple (some people might reasonably judge it so), we prefer that the setting entail a certain bias toward what we find interesting and fun. So we have rules, yes, but they are best understood as guidelines from which we can reason, via ruling, about specific instances of anything.
So what happened in our game is:
A cornered goblin in mortal fear took the only escape route available -- through the enemy. Its enemies tried to stop it but it was too slippery and quick.
What I find so cool about 5E is that during play we talked about what was going on like that. Provoking OAs, the Disengage action, Combat Tests as Reactions ... all those mechanics were active. The motor was running silently under the hood. If anybody at the table had wanted to, and I say this as something of a RPG "gearhead," they could have popped the hood and seen all the parts whirling right along. But nobody did because we were into the scene, the setting, the action.
MWHistorian wrote: My best character ever was a Medusa archer. That's what I'm looking for.
You won't find it in the free PDF. You have Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Human and Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. OTOH my first 5E character was a Dwarf Wizard, which has been pretty rare in the past. In 5E, to step into the power gamer shoes for a moment, the Dwarf Wizard is not only "viable" but brings something otherwise unavailable so far in 5E: an armored mage. I gave her the Soldier background so she's even less the stereotypical "Starter Box" caster. Very fun so far!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: You could start by comparing the number of pages devoted to combat maneuvers for martial characters to the number of pages to spells.
If you want to use spells, play a caster. People have a pretty good idea of what a warrior can do thanks to action movies. And that is a lot of stuff, at least if you are an imaginative person. But you don't need a list of permissions because you are already familiar with the laws of nature, which are also assumed in the game's setting. Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: all the Save or Die spells, the utility spells, the overall general use spells, along with said spells that made other classes useless
Manchu wrote: 3E definitely had the problem that higher level casters had spells that mimicked or mooted non-caster class abilities.
I never got the freedom argument. 4E did not remove freedom; It provided everyone with options. Just because the basic attack powers had fluff descriptions didn't mean they had any less possibility for interpretation than a normal melee basic in 3E.
I.e. I don't know how 'Swing twice' is any more freedom than 'Raptor Strike'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want to use spells, play a caster. People have a pretty good idea of what a warrior can do thanks to action movies. And that is a lot of stuff, at least if you are an imaginative person. But you don't need a list of permissions because you are already familiar with the laws of nature, which are also assumed in the game's setting. Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.
The difference is this:
Fighter - Standard low-level Attack "I.e. I swing my sword at my opponent." 1d8 + Strength Fighter - Awesome High Level Attack "I.e. I jump up, grab the chandelier, kick the dude in the face, land on his chest and stab him." 1d8 + Strength + a bonus if your DM sees fit. At high levels, you get to do that multiple times in one round.
Wizard - Standard Low Level Attack "i.e. I fire a magic missle at the darkness" 1d4 + Int Wizard - Awesome High Level Attack "I incinerate you with my mind" Grab a number of damage dice equal to your level, add your int at least once.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I.e. No matter how many action movies you've seen and try to emulate, you still just do weapon damage to your opponent. Wizards on the other hand...
4E did not provide the options. The options were always there. By categorizing, labeling, and distributing the options, 4E actually radically limited them.
Also a spell is not equivalent to a melee attack. I mean, sure that is true if you are just talking about the computer program running the simulation. But not in the world of the setting. Just because magic doesn't break the rules of the game doesn't mean it breaks the laws of nature of the game's setting.
Magic in super chess, however, is truly mundane. But only mundane in a world where everything is X-TREEEEM!!! As I mentioned above, 4E reduced magic to the superpowers or pro-wrestling moves. It did the same to melee combat. That is how 4E made magic and melee functionally equivalent for the sake of balance.
Manchu wrote: 4E did not provide the options. The options were always there. By categorizing, labeling, and distributing the options, 4E actually radically limited them.
Also a spell is not equivalent to a melee attack. I mean, sure that is true if you are just talking about the computer program running the simulation. But not in the world of the setting.
As I mentioned above, 4E reduced magic to the superpowers or pro-wrestling moves. It did the same to melee combat. That is how 4E made magic and melee functionally equivalent for the sake of balance.
4E didn't limit anything.
3E - What can a fighter do? Grapple. Swing his Sword (multiple times sometimes!) Bull rush. 4E - What can a fighter do? A crap-ton of stuff based on level. Including Swinging his sword. Want to grapple? You can still do that; I had a grappling fighter in 4E. Want to bull-rush? You can still do that; did it many times with fighters. You got more moves, more freedom, not less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Magic in super chess, however, is truly mundane. But only mundane in a world where everything is X-TREEEEM!!!.
This is totally your perception of it, but not at all how it played out in any game I played in.
Just because a fighter has the options to do 'three tiger kick' or 'Stone crushing rage' doesn't make it supernatural or make magic any less magical.
I.e. if Jet Li shows up at my house and knocks the teeth out of some dudes with super sweet kung fu, I'm gonna think that is improbable, but really cool. He's a badass highlevel martial artist after all. If Jet Li shows up at my house and incinerates a bunch of dudes with a fireball, I'm going to gak my pants because that's magic and magic isn't real. Also, where'd he get levels in Wizard?
Let's find out -- you tell me what you want to try and I will tell you what to roll.
In 4E, what can a fighter do?
Pages and pages of very specific things and just those things.
What's the player in basic restricted to? DM Fiat. i.e. (you tell me what you want to try and I will tell you what to roll.) What's the player in 4E restricted to? DM Fiat. i.e. (you tell me what you want to try and I will tell you what to roll.)
There's as much back up for (you tell me what you want to try and I will tell you what to roll.) in basic as there is in 4E.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know how I know that? Because I've DM'd both and players still ask in 4E 'Hey can I do X?' and I still have to adjudicate it, just as DM's have done for the last million years.
Unless, of course, I missed the part in the DMG that said I couldn't do that anymore.
If we're playing 4E and you are the DM, I don't need to ask you permission to use Three Tiger Kick. WotC published a book that said I could as long as I was this level of this class with these other prerequisites. In fact, I don't really need your permission to do anything or your interpretation as to how it is done. There is a rule for everything of significance. In fact, all I really need to do is invoke whichever rule. You are just as bound by it as I am, because you are by and large the opponent. If you don't let me use Three Dragon Kick, you are cheating, just like if I don't let you use monsters of the appropriate challenge rating. This is the clarity that Buzzsaw correctly identified above.
If we're playing Basic and I am DMing, you don't need permission from me to try anything. This is not because there is a rule for everything but because you getting to try whatever we agree makes reasonable sense given the setting is the fundamental premise of the game. My role as the DM is to figure out what is the most reasonable way to test whether your attempt is successful and then to narrate the consequences.
4th was highly limiting and stiffling. "Here's what you can do, like action tabs on an MMO."
Unlike in wargames, in RPG's I don't care about balance. A good DM can and should do whatever it takes to make the game fun, like an interactive story. (for me) The more restrictive those rules, the less I can get into the game.
@MWHistorian - Yep that's also what I like in a RPG. But even though I started playing with AD&D 2E Revised, my real roots are with Third Edition. I do like a good bit of crunch in terms of what people sometimes call "options." When 4E came out, I was very much on board. OTOH, as I got older, I started to realize that I love RPGs more than board games and war games precisely because they entail this radical freedom that those crunchier games don't and can't. What amazes me about 5E is how it strikes a happy medium between these aspects of my preference.
Buzzsaw wrote: With due respect, then why do you persist in asking questions for which you already know the answer?
That's a good question. There is nothing wrong with playing D&D as if it were super chess. Hell, I like it, too, even though it specifically excludes the thing RPGs bring to the table that other games mostly cannot; i.e., the extraordinary freedom. But yes, sometimes I really want to play something crunchy and sharply defined. But I find cooperative board games more effective in scratching the itch -- yes, they are so much less complex but they also take so much less time than 4E.
Buzzsaw wrote: Since my point is that moving through an occupied square is very different form simple movement, which is what the rules cover, my point is the DM decided he wanted to do something and simply did it.
First, yes the DM decided what he wanted to do and did it. Second, what he did was completely in line with the rules.
Third, there are no such things as "occupied squares" in our game. We aren't playing super chess so there are no squares at all. Our characters are not pawns on a board. They are people experiencing a story in a setting. That experience arises from known quantities (mechanics) smashing into unknown ones (randomness). That's pretty standard for table top games but what makes our game different is the setting is too complex to be perfectly described in every aspect at every level of granularity by a predetermined rule set. And even if it was that simple (some people might reasonably judge it so), we prefer that the setting entail a certain bias toward what we find interesting and fun. So we have rules, yes, but they are best understood as guidelines from which we can reason, via ruling, about specific instances of anything.
So what happened in our game is:
A cornered goblin in mortal fear took the only escape route available -- through the enemy. Its enemies tried to stop it but it was too slippery and quick.
What I find so cool about 5E is that during play we talked about what was going on like that. Provoking OAs, the Disengage action, Combat Tests as Reactions ... all those mechanics were active. The motor was running silently under the hood. If anybody at the table had wanted to, and I say this as something of a RPG "gearhead," they could have popped the hood and seen all the parts whirling right along. But nobody did because we were into the scene, the setting, the action.
And so you have the answer to the ultimate question: 5e isn't just unable to be reconciled with 4e sensibilities, but requires a certain amount of contempt for them.
Seriously now, "super chess"?
That's the thing, the more you try and make what happened in your game comport with the rules, the more it fails to comport with them.
If your characters exist in this sort of quantum fog, "Our characters are not pawns on a board. They are people experiencing a story in a setting"*, well then, the goblin didn't pass through any occupied spaces (squares would be too concrete, natch). So the dex checks were superfluous: taking a disengage action allows movement free from OAs.
Oh, wait a minute, he did pass through your spaces: "It dashed through the legs of the Dwarf Fighter, my (reasonably tough) Dwarf Wizard, and the Human Fighter." Hmm...
Ah, I see, the DM simply gave the goblin the Halfling trait; "Halfling Nimbleness. You can move through the space of any creature that is of a size larger than yours." Go go rocket Rogues indeed!
Hmm, no, that doesn't work either. Besides giving any small creature an ability that is given specifically to Halflings, a Halfling doesn't need to make a check. Because of Halfling Nimbleness, he can simply pass through other creature's... spaces. Again we are in a position where the dex checks were superfluous.
Ah, he decided that the goblin, being small, could pass through other's spaces, but lacking the halfling's nimbleness, it had to make opposed dex checks. A fine ruling, marred only by being completely unpredictable and thus, of course, a terrible example of tactical combat.
If we are to compare 4e to super chess, it seems that 5e is meant to be a different game... "Mother May I?"
*By the way, the very existence of Halfling Nimbleness means that occupied spaces are something the rules intend for you to take seriously.
I'm not finding your arguments for why LFQW either isn't a thing or isn't a thing worth worrying about very convincing.
I already said I was going to wait till PHB before making any decisions but then you pursued the question specifically at me a second time so I tried to be polite and give you a cursory answer to why I have my suspicions that this may be another caster edition. You seem like Kevin Spacey's Lex Luthor begging people to say something then screaming "NO" before they can finish.
MWHistorian wrote: 4th was highly limiting and stiffling. "Here's what you can do, like action tabs on an MMO."
Unlike in wargames, in RPG's I don't care about balance. A good DM can and should do whatever it takes to make the game fun, like an interactive story. (for me) The more restrictive those rules, the less I can get into the game.
Stating an opinion while also stating you don't have enough information to support said opinion speaks for itself. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt based on years of reading your posts.
Furthermore - I have expressed skepticism at "LFQW" as a slogan but not at the idea that 3E had big problems with casters outshining non-casters. I have even pointed out this distinction before. Now I have pointed it out to you specifically. If you have questions about it, by all means ask. But please stop pretending it doesn't exist.
@Buzzsaw:
Chess is a game of clearly defined and perfectly balanced mechanics. Comparing 4E to chess is not meant to be an insult given that 4E plainly aspires to those aspects of chess. I call it super chess because it takes on many more mechanics than chess while keeping the goals of clarity and balance. Each piece in 4E can do much more than each piece in chess.
Your analysis of my description of play is nicely proving that 5E can handle 4E-style combat. After all the main qualifier is the consistency/complexity of abstract norms. Sure, it's not as complex as 4E. A few days ago, I would say and did say that 5E was incompatible with the ruleplaying style of 4E. But you are starting to change my mind. I think WotC could offer some more complex parts for 4E fans to bolt on.
In any case -- what I have been trying to show you is that 5E can also handle the style I prefer: where play comes from rulings rather than rules. To stay with your example of the goblin doing something "completely unpredictable" ... again, I disagree. Looking at the goblin as a goblin, rather than a chess piece, it was absolutely reasonable that he would try to bolt through our ranks. And it was not at all unreasonable that he could try to do it and even succeed (despite the odds).
MWHistorian wrote: 4th was highly limiting and stiffling. "Here's what you can do, like action tabs on an MMO."
Unlike in wargames, in RPG's I don't care about balance. A good DM can and should do whatever it takes to make the game fun, like an interactive story. (for me) The more restrictive those rules, the less I can get into the game.
Maybe because he wants to run around with elves n' dwarves and whatever and not modern-era Special SuperSecretMonsters : My character is 12deep14you - The sexying expansion.
Stating an opinion while also stating you don't have enough information to support said opinion speaks for itself.
I don't have an opinion yet, which i have stated twice now. I haven't said fighters are bad, that they are unplayable, or anything like that, just that it seems they have regressed in terms of options. This is, at best, a surface reading only prompted by someone consistently asking me to have say something about it even after saying I wasn't really ready to. I also am somewhat skeptical about LFQW as a slogan but I also think there is some truth to it as well. How much it effects the game or the players is debatable.
Manchu wrote: No I have pointed it out to you specifically. If you have questions about it, by all means ask. But please stop pretending it doesn't exist.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I'm not sure what you think is being pretended to not exist or what questions need to be asked but aren't.
Let's find out -- you tell me what you want to try and I will tell you what to roll.
In 4E, what can a fighter do?
Pages and pages of very specific things and just those things.
What's the player in basic restricted to? DM Fiat. i.e. (you tell me what you want to try and I will tell you what to roll.)
What's the player in 4E restricted to? DM Fiat. i.e. (you tell me what you want to try and I will tell you what to roll.)
There's as much back up for (you tell me what you want to try and I will tell you what to roll.) in basic as there is in 4E.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know how I know that? Because I've DM'd both and players still ask in 4E 'Hey can I do X?' and I still have to adjudicate it, just as DM's have done for the last million years.
Unless, of course, I missed the part in the DMG that said I couldn't do that anymore.
Oh well, off for the day. Cheers!
Manchu wrote:If we're playing 4E and you are the DM, I don't need to ask you permission to use Three Tiger Kick. WotC published a book that said I could as long as I was this level of this class with these other prerequisites. In fact, I don't really need your permission to do anything or your interpretation as to how it is done. There is a rule for everything of significance. In fact, all I really need to do is invoke whichever rule. You are just as bound by it as I am, because you are by and large the opponent. If you don't let me use Three Dragon Kick, you are cheating, just like if I don't let you use monsters of the appropriate challenge rating. This is the clarity that Buzzsaw correctly identified above.
If we're playing Basic and I am DMing, you don't need permission from me to try anything. This is not because there is a rule for everything but because you getting to try whatever we agree makes reasonable sense given the setting is the fundamental premise of the game. My role as the DM is to figure out what is the most reasonable way to test whether your attempt is successful and then to narrate the consequences.
"If we're playing Basic and I am DMing, you don't need permission from me to try anything", But what is this to mean?
This notion, that 4e restricted what people could do, is simply impossible to square with reality, because all editions have the escape hatch of "can I X?" Where X is surf a shield down the stairs while shooting a hail of arrows, catch the sun on your shield to dazzle a vampire, use a cantrip to light a rope surreptitiously to cause a chandelier to fall and so on.
In all of those cases and every other case, you do the same thing in every edition of D&D: you say you want to do it and the DM determines what mechanics to use. Skill challenges, ability checks, etc.
The difference is that in 4e, the rules a) give classes a lot more to do, and b) took a lot of things out of the realm of "may I?" and into "I do".
Put another way, 5e does everything that 4e does, it just does a lot of what 4e did much, much worse.
Ahtman wrote: I'm not sure what you think is being pretended to not exist or what questions need to be asked but aren't.
Ahtman wrote: your arguments for why LFQW either isn't a thing or isn't a thing worth worrying about
Buzzsaw wrote: all editions have the escape hatch of "can I X?"
It is only an "escape hatch" in 4E. As I mentioned, it (or rather "I try this") is the fundamental premise of the game in other editions.
Buzzsaw wrote: took a lot of things out of the realm of "may I?" and into "I do".
You have it absolutely reversed. In past editions, players told DMs what they were doing and DMs told players how to test if they were successful and then narrated the consequences of success or failure. in 4E, the player needs permission for everything and 99.999% of it is given or withheld by WotC.
2: Balance: Will it be a team effort, or will casters dominate the field.
While I can't say for 5E, my wife and I's current 4E campaign, combat is dominated by a combination of the Assassin and Warden characters. the Cleric does OK at healing, and the Psion does her job admirably (which is to rearrange the baddies to allow the Warden and Assassin to carve them up at their leisure)
I say that to say, I don't think ALL casters dominate the field. I've never actually played a campaign with a true wizard or warlock or the more "traditional" casters, so perhaps there is a limit to which caster classes tend to become "over powered"
Manchu wrote: @Buzzsaw:...
Your analysis of my description of play is nicely proving that 5E can handle 4E-style combat. After all the main qualifier is the consistency/complexity of abstract norms. Sure, it's not as complex as 4E. A few days ago, I would say and did say that 5E was incompatible with the ruleplaying style of 4E. But you are starting to change my mind. I think WotC could offer some more complex parts for 4E fans to bolt on.
Not to be cruel, but I think what you're showing is that if one is desperate enough, you can shoehorn the idea of "tactics" into anything, regardless of how poorly it fits.
Seriously man, your own friend said "the beautiful tactical combat is gone". You asked the 4e fans of Dakka, "do YOU (if you are a 4E player)
think this kind of game play sounds fun?"
This fan said "No." (I'll let the others speak for themselves, but they don't seem too chuffed.)
Manchu wrote: In any case -- what I have been trying to show you is that 5E can also handle the style I prefer: where play comes from rulings rather than rules. To stay with your example of the goblin doing something "completely unpredictable" ... again, I disagree. Looking at the goblin as a goblin, rather than a chess piece, it was absolutely reasonable that he would try to bolt through our ranks. And it was not at all unreasonable that he could try to do it and even succeed (despite the odds).
This is a prime example of "shoehorning". I said;
"Ah, he decided that the goblin, being small, could pass through other's spaces, but lacking the halfling's nimbleness, it had to make opposed dex checks. A fine ruling, marred only by being completely unpredictable and thus, of course, a terrible example of tactical combat. "
The "he" doesn't refer to the goblin, but the DM, while the goblin was fairly clearly "it". Given that this statement follows a series of other statements where I am examining what the DM did, I thought it was clear. So what you are saying there is... well it's a non-sequiter. The idea that it supports what you are talking about is out and out bizarre.
I honestly don't know what to say to you at this point: you seem to be investing quite a lot of emotion in convincing yourself of something you, and everyone you ask, know to be false. The one thing you have clearly and unambiguously shown (to me at least) is that 5e will be absolute crap at replicating what I like from 4e.
Heh, I suppose I ought to thank you: every interaction we have does more to convince me that 5e is not something I should be wasting my money on.
pretre wrote: Don't let people online sour you on a game before you try it.
I'll admit that opinion was also soured because I was on the DnD Next forums for a while, while all of them were doing their best to purge all 4E players from the forums and all thoughts from 5E
Which they kinda did, including the developers who insulted things from 4E the entire time, added "New" things which were renamed from 4E to hide the fact where it came from..
So yeah, It's rather as a 'whole' rather then just one person.
But I suppose I'll wait and see, if it isn't any good I'll pick up 13th age.
Buzzsaw wrote: you seem to be investing quite a lot of emotion in convincing yourself of something you, and everyone you ask, know to be false
Seriously what?
Buzzsaw wrote: The "he" doesn't refer to the goblin, but the DM, while the goblin was fairly clearly "it".
Distinction without a difference. The goblin's choices were made by the DM. What the GM had the goblin do was nothing close to "completely unpredictable" as a matter of roleplaying. The goblin is not just a piece on a board in our game. It is not defined only by its stat block programming blurb.
Pages and pages of very specific things and just those things.
Then why do you not complain about the Wizards and Spell Casters who do this? Should they not be able to 'interpret' their abilities at will?
Manchu wrote: People have a pretty good idea of what a warrior can do thanks to action movies. And that is a lot of stuff, at least if you are an imaginative person. But you don't need a list of permissions because you are already familiar with the laws of nature, which are also assumed in the game's setting. Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.
People have a pretty good idea of what a warrior can do thanks to action movies. And that is a lot of stuff, at least if you are an imaginative person. But you don't need a list of permissions because you are already familiar with the laws of nature, which are also assumed in the game's setting. Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.
Aside from the fact that this means that everything is set into the hands of a DM who now has to calculate whether a shield bash would have a stun, or just be a standard attack with a shield.
It's actually far more limiting because all it sets up for is DM fiat that isn't consistent from table to table about what a fighter can do. While at the same time a Caster still has all that 'Imagination' and can still cast his mechanically powerful skills.
In short, that doesn't fix anything at all and still puts the powers in Caster hands.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: In short, that doesn't fix anything at all and still puts the powers in Caster hands.
Magic breaks the laws of nature. Casters use magic. Non-casters don't. Having played a ton of 3.5 and PF, I know this can create problems. Whether those problems exist in 5E is in my mind an open question.
So today's discussion has been fruitful to me.
- Can 5E be played as an "interpretive game" like Basic? Yes.
- Can 5E be played as a game that privileges rulings over rules but still has a wide range of rules like AD&D? Yes.
- Can 5E be played as a permissive skirmish miniatures/board game with or without room for rulings like 3E and 4E? Buzzsaw has helped me see that, yes, this is also possible.
Buzzsaw wrote: you seem to be investing quite a lot of emotion in convincing yourself of something you, and everyone you ask, know to be false
Seriously what?
Let's take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?
Manchu wrote: @Buzzsaw: Yes, it is hard to see how anyone who really loves the crunchiness of 4E could simulate it with 5E, even with the idea of bolting on more aspects of 4E with the upcoming DMG. Fortunately, there's a ton of 4E material.
Manchu wrote: In 5E, we used all of those 3E/4E mechanics without talking about them -- in effect, just like a Basic/OSR game. Indeed, the DM confirmed to me that he was not consciously using the rules, just making calls that seemed reasonable and fun. To me, this shows that 5E is pretty successful at unifying gameplay across editions.
Our resident 4E fan complained the next day that "the beautiful tactical combat is gone." I am wondering if the 4E fans of Dakka also see it that way, given my example.
Manchu wrote: You think "house rule" means band aid. That is a board game mentality. In RPGs (and scenario-based war gaming), the better word is ruling. A ruling isn't about "fixing the game" so "it works." It is about customization and imagination. A RPG without rulings is Warhammer Quest, Descent, Myth, or, their more complicated cousin, D&D 4E.
You are right, however, that we agree that the Original. First, Second, Third, and Fifth Editions of D&D are ultimately incompatible with Fourth Edition.
So far, 5E is my favorite version of D&D. I have not and will not throw out any of my 4E stuff (finally snagged the DMK two weeks ago), because it is a wonderful skirmish game, but it's not what I call a good RPG.
Buzzsaw wrote: What's happening is that our perspectives are so divergent that there are things that you find good and well done, that I find tedious and inept.
Yep, I've been explaining that ITT for something like a month or more.
- Can 5E be played as an "interpretive game" like Basic? Yes.
- Can 5E be played as a game that privileges rulings over rules but still has a wide range of rules like AD&D? Yes.
- Can 5E be played as a permissive skirmish miniatures/board game with or without room for rulings like 3E and 4E? Buzzsaw has helped me see that, yes, this is also possible.
IMO this is an impressive degree of versatility.
If pointing out that your DM has facilitated tactical gaming in 5e by, apparently, ignoring the rules convinces you that "5E [can] be played as a permissive skirmish miniatures/board game", then, congratulations! Absolutely anything can be played that way. If you would like I would be happy to point out how woefully inadequate the World of Darkness rules are for a tactical RPG. Which, going off your comments above, should be enough to convince you it is the next coming of Strategema.
In all seriousness, it's not even a question that he ignored the rules, he flat out told you so: "the DM confirmed to me that he was not consciously using the rules, just making calls that seemed reasonable and fun", and right after that? Your own 4E guy bemoans that "the beautiful tactical combat is gone."
To the extent that 5e is "versatile", it does just what I mentioned before, unsatisfying half-measures all around;
Buzzsaw wrote: In the end, 5e looks to be shaping up to be everyone's second favorite rules set.
It seems pretty clear that I'm not going to be able to convince you (Manchu). You've asked your question ("given the rules we have and the actual play described do YOU (if you are a 4E player) think this kind of game play sounds fun?") and been given my answer ("No."), so let's go the other way. Here is my question to you;
Where is the Bone?
You know, the bone in the Basic rules thrown to the 4E guys like your friend. The signal to the people that hate vancian casting like poison and loathe having only simple martial classes. The gift to the people that though the warlord was aces and who prowled the CharOp boards looking for insights. The corn in the... stuff.
The basic rules are the first and largest selling point for this edition, a lure for players of all previous editions. I honestly don't see anything here to satisfy the 4e fan, but you do. So help me out, and tell me what I missed.
When did people get the idea that 5ed would appeal to 4ed players? I mean I guess it can appeal to some in the same way people can like cats and the color red, but it was very clear from the very start of 5ed that 4ed was going to be treated as a mistake.
Citing that I changed my opinion cannot prove that I am emotionally committed to that opinion.
When I first started reading the 5E PDF, it struck me as way too "interpretive" to be 4E-compatible. I posted that opinion ITT. Playing the game initially seemed to confirm my opinion. My friend's lament for the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E also seemed to confirm my opinion. In trying to understand his reaction,* I started to analyze an instance of our gameplay from a perspective emphasizing the rules as written, beginning with the hypothesis that our DM had disregarded Opportunity Attacks. Reflecting further, with the rules in front of me, I found that our gameplay was very much in harmony with the tactical combat rules as written, which are all lifted from/inspired by elements of 3E and 4E.
I started to realize that my initial opinion could be based on me reading Basic into 5E. Indeed, I noticed that very few (almost no) 5E mechanics come from B/X, BECMI, or the Rules Cyclopedia. It was clear I needed others' perspectives. Specifically, I needed to see how people who would read different editions into 5E would interpret the gameplay. So I wrote a critical reflection of the game -- noting both the narrative surface and all the mechanics that at least could be running underneath. I left open the possibility that the DM was using the tactical combat rules or disregarding them because I genuinely did not know.
The DM got back to me, as I related here, that he was not consciously using the rules. In his own words, "I just made up what I wanted the goblin to do and he did it." I am fascinated that what he "just made up" was so closely in sync with the what the PDF outlines. Alpharius, who I asked as an AD&D afficianado, said it had an old school feel and intention. ZebioLizard2 and pretre seemed to think it sounded like run of the mill gameplay. One OSR booster on another site said it sounded "awfully crunchy" to him but was pleased to learn that nobody talked rules during play. Buzzsaw, skeptical before the release and convinced after that 5E was not 4E enough (and with whom I emphatically agreed at that time), told me the DM either misused the rules or cheated and then explained the proper way to play 5E.
Seeing this "rules, not rulings" approach applied point-by-point to 5E, a game I initially thought was more about "rulings, not rules," convinced me I had been wrong: here was the very proof that 5E was substantial enough to be played like 4E, namely as a miniatures skirmish game with (as Buzzsaw put it) a roleplaying "escape hatch" to cover whatever was not explicitly permitted/not permitted by the rules as written. While I am still not convinced that the game can be played simultaneously as an interpretive game and as a determinative game, I now see that it can at least be played either way. Whether that means it can replace any or all previous editions is completely personal.
I know admitting that you changed your mind after hearing out other people's opinions is considered running up the white flag on the internet. So be it. My initial opinion about 5E was wrong. I must admit, liking 5E more as a result -- especially after being so skeptical about it (from the opposite perspective of Buzzsaw and ZebioLizard2) for so long -- takes the sting out of it.
* This friend told me in June he would not buy any 5E products because he spent so much on 4E. After our first session, he enthusiastically exclaimed that he hated to do it but he wanted to get the 5E core books. The next day, he posted on facebook that 5E was "inferior" and the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E was gone. So that's what I was trying to understand by reflecting on our gameplay and seeking others' opinions, specifically people who seem to prefer 4E.
nomotog wrote: When did people get the idea that 5ed would appeal to 4ed players? I mean I guess it can appeal to some in the same way people can like cats and the color red, but it was very clear from the very start of 5ed that 4ed was going to be treated as a mistake.
IIRC, the marketing line was 5E was supposed to bring in fans of every edition. When I originally heard this, I was severely skeptical. But seeing a bunch of people who prefer a bunch of different versions get around a table and have fun with it has really challenged that skepticism. Of course, I also see people here and elsewhere who want to stick to what they are already doing.
Seeing this "rules, not rulings" approach applied point-by-point to 5E, a game I initially thought was more about "rulings, not rules," convinced me I had been wrong: here was the very proof that 5E was substantial enough to be played like 4E, namely as a miniatures skirmish game with (as Buzzsaw put it) a roleplaying "escape hatch" to cover whatever was not explicitly permitted/not permitted by the rules as written.
I never said that, I said it looked like gameplay, and I didn't see what I was supposed to be looking for.
Though I do agree with buzzsaws interpretation of the facts as is, and you seem to constantly insult 4E unintentionally when it comes down to it, considering that the grid wasn't needed at all but people seemed to think beyond that.
nomotog wrote: You know, there very well may have been a press release somewhere. They did a lot of talks about different things from small to large.
There certainly was a press release:
We want a game that rises above differences of play styles, campaign settings, and editions, one that takes the fundamental essence of D&D and brings it to the forefront of the game. In short, we want a game that is as simple or complex as you please, its action focused on combat, intrigue, and exploration as you desire. We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play.
Seeing this "rules, not rulings" approach applied point-by-point to 5E, a game I initially thought was more about "rulings, not rules," convinced me I had been wrong: here was the very proof that 5E was substantial enough to be played like 4E, namely as a miniatures skirmish game with (as Buzzsaw put it) a roleplaying "escape hatch" to cover whatever was not explicitly permitted/not permitted by the rules as written.
I never said that, I said it looked like gameplay, and I didn't see what I was supposed to be looking for.
Fortunately, I did not attribute that to you. As you will note, that is explicitly quoting Buzzsaw. Here's what I attributed to you and pretre:
Manchu wrote: ZebioLizard2 and pretre seemed to think it sounded like run of the mill gameplay.
pretre wrote: Could you do that in pretty much any edition of D&D? Sure could.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Though I do agree with buzzsaws interpretation of the facts as is, and you seem to constantly insult 4E unintentionally when it comes down to it, considering that the grid wasn't needed at all but people seemed to think beyond that.
I don't follow any of this (especially the part about the grid not being needed ... in 5E? in 4E?), other than you seem think me saying that 4E emphasized clarity and balance is an unintentional insult. Or is it an insult to say that 4E is a permissive rule set like a tactical miniatures game? Or that D&D can be played in a different way from how you play 4E? I have been very careful to avoid saying that how you play 4E is bad or wrong because I do not believe that. Indeed, I have said I also enjoy playing 4E that way but that it is too time-intensive, which can hardly be insulting. Then again I also do not understand how Buzzsaw can say:
Buzzsaw wrote: To say that 4e players are left in the cold is to misstate it: 4e players are actively antagonized by elements of 5e.
Do you agree with that? If so, can you tell me how you think "elements of 5E" (which elements?) "actively antagonize" 4E players?
Do you agree with that? If so, can you tell me how you think "elements of 5E" (which elements?) "actively antagonize" 4E players?
He is right in that the basic book doesn't really lend much towards 4E players with archetype choice, they all pretty much seem like standard 3.5 classes.
Most of the active antagonized issues for myself came from the developers, their various tweets, along with the insulting towards the one class 4E players wanted in to represent them (The Warlord) being actively insulted against the entire time during development. It was quite obvious that the "Unity" for 5E was only for 3.5 and before considering how they treated 4E during the entire development period.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: the basic book doesn't really lend much towards 4E players with archetype choice
- Clerics have Divine Domains - Fighters have Fighting Style and Martial Archetypes - Rogues have Rougish Archetypes - Wizards have Arcane Traditions
Yes, only one example of each is included in the free PDF. The free PDF also makes clear that more choices will be available in the PHB.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It was quite obvious that the "Unity" for 5E was only for 3.5 and before considering how they treated 4E during the entire development period.
I can't speak to the designer tweets because I didn't follow them. Maybe you could post some examples? But I will say that 5E is chock full of elements from 4E. Again, I am not saying that makes it equivalent to 4E. But 4E is probably the single most influential edition in terms of sheer number of mechanics adopted/expanded. 5E's hit dice, death saves, weapon proficiencies, skill system class archetypes, ritual spells, saving throws, inspiration, and likely other stuff that I just can't think of off the top of my head came from 4E innovations. 5E owes a great deal to 4E.
I quoted it to show that 5E was meant to be inclusive or at least modular enough to be customized into something that whoever could like. This is because nomotog asked where people got the idea that 5E would appeal to 4E players.
Manchu wrote: If you want to use spells, play a caster. People have a pretty good idea of what a warrior can do thanks to action movies. And that is a lot of stuff, at least if you are an imaginative person. But you don't need a list of permissions because you are already familiar with the laws of nature, which are also assumed in the game's setting. Magic, however, requires a long list of permissions (the spell text) because it breaks the laws of nature.
So because swordsmen basically fly in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, you're okay with my fighter doing that? I mean, going through any amount of swordsman action media can generate some ridiculous powers. Like Zoro cutting through steel in One Piece, or all sorts of anime series where people cut through buildings and crap.
And I'd also say that there are plenty of movies showcasing the power of wizards. Surely you're also, then, okay with limiting wizards to an arbitrary set of powers that Hollywood thinks fits them? I mean, sure you get the killing curse out of Harry Potter, but Gandalf was a wizard and basically sucked it up from a magical perspective in 5 movies so far.
Referring to "the laws of nature" being "assumed in the game's setting"? I mean, by the laws of nature dragons shouldn't be able to fly. The power needed by their wings to lift multiple ton bodies off the ground would basically crush anyone around them. Even if, as I assume, you mean "the laws of nature in the game setting which let dragons fly", then arbitrarily deciding that those rules don't allow a swordsman to do the same ridiculous stuff that a wizard can (or at least their own version of ridiculous stuff) is beyond assinine. It's basically the D&D version of "Frell you, got mine".
As to Basic vs 4e and the "Descriptive attack" thing, you can't seriously be telling me you see a difference between 4e's "Basic Attack" and any other version of D&D's "I attack". The only difference is that one is codified in a little card, the other is in the combat section of the rules. If you can come up with all sorts of rulings for other editions "I attack", there is nothing except your own limitations on seeing a power card that stops you from applying the same process and procedure to 4e's "Basic Attack".
I'm honestly not sure how you can present these arguments straight faced. You present multiple arguments for creativity, but then suddenly when "I attack" ends up on a card you seeminly lose all capacity for creativity?
We'll see if it comes back with 5E.
)
