PDA

View Full Version : Is 5e balanced?



Pages : [1] 2

tcrudisi
2014-07-26, 06:05 PM
I've been playing D&D since late 1st edition and I've always immediately changed to the new edition as I feel that each edition has greatly improved over the previous one. However, with this one, I began in the playtest phase and ... it disheartened me. As such, I haven't checked it out yet. I'm wondering if it is even worth it. So I come to you guys in the hope that you can answer a few questions.

1. Balance is very important to me. I want the ability to pick up any class and not worry about always hogging the limelight because my class can do nice things but the other PCs can't. How well balanced are the classes? Will I be able to pick up a Fighter and do as much as the Wizard, or am I going to be limited to just killing stuff?

2. 4e did one absolutely amazing thing for healers: the minor action heal. Was that left intact in some form? Or does the healer have to spend their attack action to heal?

3. Are weapon classes basically limited to full action attacks again? Or do the get unique maneuvers that allow them to change up what they do round-by-round?

I would love to make the shift to 5e so I'm hoping that these questions have the answers that I would enjoy. Thanks in advance!

Jeraa
2014-07-26, 06:15 PM
Will I be able to pick up a Fighter and do as much as the Wizard, or am I going to be limited to just killing stuff?

No, a fighter still can't really do as much as a wizard and his spells.


2. 4e did one absolutely amazing thing for healers: the minor action heal. Was that left intact in some form? Or does the healer have to spend their attack action to heal?

There are no minor actions. There are regular actions, and sometimes a bonus action. A cleric must still give up his attack action to heal.


3. Are weapon classes basically limited to full action attacks again? Or do the get unique maneuvers that allow them to change up what they do round-by-round?

Unique maneuvers? No. They are limited to the same maneuvers as everyone else. Which, at least as far as the Basic PDF is concerned, is only the Grapple and Shove maneuvers. Feats may do this once the PHB comes out, however.

Callin
2014-07-26, 06:20 PM
Wait for the PHB to be released before making a judgement. Right now we have 4 out of 12 classes, and only the most basic of paths for them. Not all spells are released, and if your table is going to use them.. Feats are not out yet. So wait till mid august to make your judgement.

tcrudisi
2014-07-26, 06:23 PM
No, a fighter still can't really do as much as a wizard and his spells.



There are no minor actions. There are regular actions, and sometimes a bonus action. A cleric must still give up his attack action to heal.



Unique maneuvers? No. They are limited to the same maneuvers as everyone else. Which, at least as far as the Basic PDF is concerned, is only the Grapple maneuver. Feats may do this once the PHB comes out, however.


I was afraid of that.



Wait for the PHB to be released before making a judgement. Right now we have 4 out of 12 classes, and only the most basic of paths for them. Not all spells are released, and if your table is going to use them.. Feats are not out yet. So wait till mid august to make your judgement.

Will do. I just know that the basic handbook was already released, so I figured it would answer those things definitively. Though I'm guessing that #2 already has been answered definitively since I doubt they make changes to how actions work.

Thanks you two!

Sartharina
2014-07-26, 06:23 PM
There are no minor actions. There are regular actions, and sometimes a bonus action. A cleric must still give up his attack action to heal.
Actually - bonus actions are similar to 4e's minor actions. The spell "Healing Word" is a bonus action cast, so you can whack someone then heal. It's less efficient than other healing methods, though, being only a d4/spell level instead of d8 (It's okay cast from a first level spell slot, though, with Attribute Bonus and the healer's knack providing the bulk of the healing)

Jeraa
2014-07-26, 06:27 PM
Actually - bonus actions are similar to 4e's minor actions. The spell "Healing Word" is a bonus action cast, so you can whack someone then heal. It's less efficient than other healing methods, though, being only a d4/spell level instead of d8 (It's okay cast from a first level spell slot, though, with Attribute Bonus and the healer's knack providing the bulk of the healing)

So it is. I had missed that.

pwykersotz
2014-07-26, 06:29 PM
I've been playing D&D since late 1st edition and I've always immediately changed to the new edition as I feel that each edition has greatly improved over the previous one. However, with this one, I began in the playtest phase and ... it disheartened me. As such, I haven't checked it out yet. I'm wondering if it is even worth it. So I come to you guys in the hope that you can answer a few questions.

1. Balance is very important to me. I want the ability to pick up any class and not worry about always hogging the limelight because my class can do nice things but the other PCs can't. How well balanced are the classes? Will I be able to pick up a Fighter and do as much as the Wizard, or am I going to be limited to just killing stuff?

2. 4e did one absolutely amazing thing for healers: the minor action heal. Was that left intact in some form? Or does the healer have to spend their attack action to heal?

3. Are weapon classes basically limited to full action attacks again? Or do the get unique maneuvers that allow them to change up what they do round-by-round?

I would love to make the shift to 5e so I'm hoping that these questions have the answers that I would enjoy. Thanks in advance!

1. Playing the first leg of the starter set, I have been equally (and a bit more) useful than the wizard as the Dex Fighter. Balance seems good at low level.

2. You're out of luck with this for now, you need to use your action to heal. Edit: Corrected by previous posts.

3. Grapples, Shoves, and the like are now attack actions, allowing for significant versatility in melee crowd control. Especially once Fighter iteratives come online.

Lokiare
2014-07-26, 06:42 PM
Wait for the PHB to be released before making a judgement. Right now we have 4 out of 12 classes, and only the most basic of paths for them. Not all spells are released, and if your table is going to use them.. Feats are not out yet. So wait till mid august to make your judgement.

Actually you don't need to wait. Not much will change from the Basic PDF. All sub-classes will cram their features into the 4-6 slots they get in each class across 20 levels. You still won't get more than 4-6 feats over 20 levels. All of the core mechanics will stay the same. Bonus actions will stay the same. The wonky math will stay the same. Proficiency bonuses will stay the same...etc...etc... Basically you are expecting that they build a mansion on a foundation of sand at this point and its just not going to happen.


1. Playing the first leg of the starter set, I have been equally (and a bit more) useful than the wizard as the Dex Fighter. Balance seems good at low level.

2. You're out of luck with this for now, you need to use your action to heal. Edit: Corrected by previous posts.

3. Grapples, Shoves, and the like are now attack actions, allowing for significant versatility in melee crowd control. Especially once Fighter iteratives come online.

From levels 1-3 the non-caster characters will probably dominate while the casters hoard their few limited spells, but by level 4 and beyond the casters will have enough spells to throw 1 or more dailies down during each combat. At this point they can actually out damage non-casters on a round by round basis (see the break 5E thread) quite easily. Then of course they get utility and the ability to pick which of their prepared spells to cast out of which slot at which time and the ability to recover low level spell slots. Basically they are less powerful than 3E but much more powerful than 4E. I'd say they are around 3.9 powerful (between 3.5 and 4).

Fighters get significant versatility meaning mixing and matches 2 things or an attack. Grapples only prevent the target from moving and shoves only move the target 5' with lots of restrictions on it. Iterative attacks don't stack up in the math, especially with some of the wizard evocation tradition features. With things like over channeling on a daily spell that lasts an encounter (1 of the 4 expected encounters per day) means that they will always be ahead of the fighter. Then you can add such encounter ending spells as Charm Person (which can target multiple targets now), Hold Person/Monster (see Charm Person), Dominate Person/Monster (see Charm Person) and other similar spells, and you have the same save or die and save or suck problems as earlier editions. This is made worse by the creatures not having scaling saving throws, but the casters getting scaling save DC's for their spells. With a maxed build a level 16 caster can have a save DC of 19 meaning any creature with a -2 modifier to the ability score will fail to save automatically no roll required. Even with a +2 or +3 the creature has an extremely high chance of failure.

So if you are looking for balance then 5E is the wrong place to look. You would be better off checking out 13th Age. If you enjoyed 3.5E or earlier editions 5E might fit your play style.

zingbobco000
2014-07-26, 07:46 PM
I'd have to admit that actually 5e fighters seem much more balanced compared to 5e wizards. The main thing about it is the limited amount of spells. During the low levels (at least when I was DMing a group with the starter set with levels 1 - 3) you can basically cast thunderwave/burning hands, then just throw rays of frost around... Whereas the archer (folk hero fighter) can shoot goblins (let's just use them as an example) with a +7 (3/5ths of the time you hit) to hit compared to a +5 (1/2 the time you hit) with RoF. You then deal more damage (1d8+3 [compared to 1d8 as Wizard]), and you can action surge for another attack every encounter. The archer probably also has a higher AC (15 by level 2 as they should have accumulated studded leather compared to the measly 12 as wizard [15 if they cast mage armor which then lowers their SPD]). Getting hit 3/20ths less of the time. Now lets check HP, for the wizard: 8+xd6+x(2), fighter: 12+xd10+x(2) overall the fighter should have around 6 more HP then the wizard. Finally we discover a final horror... No INT bonus to SPD! Which means, virtually no spells for wizard/cleric. Overall I think they added more special abilities to the fighter than before, and used the rules for Special Abilities based on schools instead of feats for wizard. Maybe it's still not balanced, but from what I've seen it's way more balanced then before.

obryn
2014-07-26, 08:01 PM
It's way more balanced than 3.x/PF, but we're back to spells being the main determinant of narrative fiat.

Clerics do have access to Healing Word; it's still a spell, but it's effectively a Minor action.

There's a maneuver-based Fighter, but it looks pretty poor in comparison. (For example, its "encounter" - and more realistically, "every two or three encounters" abilities are about the potency of a 4e At-Will or worse.)

Perhaps most critically for me, we're back to spells in (many) monster stat blocks. :smallsigh:

Tholomyes
2014-07-26, 08:03 PM
I'd say it depends on what you're looking for for balance. In most areas, I'd say that it is nowhere near as balanced as 4e, but more balanced than 3.5, if for no other reason than the bounded accuracy.

On the negative side, The math is pretty bad; saving throws grow in disparity meaning casters can be even more powerful just because they can target the weaker saves more effectively. Casters still have a lot of their Quadratic nature to them, with fighters' linearity (though it is reigned in). From the side of balance which isn't about numerical balance, but instead narrative power balance, a lot of classes are a lot simpler and have less meaningful choices and less narrative power.

On the positive side, Wizards don't grow quite as unbalanced, despite their quadratic nature. The unified Proficiency bonuses does keep disparities less noticeable (well, besides certain things like Saving throws). Reductions on Magic items, Buff stacking and the introduction of Ability score maximums mean that you find less numeric disparity than 3e at higher levels. On the topic of narrative power balance the addition of backgrounds means that even fighters and other classes that typically get the short end of the stick in the skills game can have not only more skills, but a selection from a broader list than just the few scraps that are considered 'Class Skills'

Overall, I guess it largely just depends on whether 5e's imbalances are minor enough for you, to be willing to overlook them for the benefits.

Envyus
2014-07-26, 08:07 PM
Perhaps most critically for me, we're back to spells in (many) monster stat blocks. :smallsigh:

Were going to have cards which will make that easier. Also I doubt a ton of monsters will have them. And stuff like Lichs deserve them honestly. Plus if you don't like Spell casting monsters don't use them.

VeliciaL
2014-07-26, 08:32 PM
Actually - bonus actions are similar to 4e's minor actions. The spell "Healing Word" is a bonus action cast, so you can whack someone then heal. It's less efficient than other healing methods, though, being only a d4/spell level instead of d8 (It's okay cast from a first level spell slot, though, with Attribute Bonus and the healer's knack providing the bulk of the healing)

So THAT'S the difference! Although Healing Word has range, too.

obryn
2014-07-26, 09:08 PM
Were going to have cards which will make that easier. Also I doubt a ton of monsters will have them. And stuff like Lichs deserve them honestly. Plus if you don't like Spell casting monsters don't use them.
No, I think I'll just play a game where I don't need to worry about it. Spell cards are little better than an srd or a PHB. It's still a pain in the ass.

Knaight
2014-07-26, 09:21 PM
I've been playing D&D since late 1st edition and I've always immediately changed to the new edition as I feel that each edition has greatly improved over the previous one. However, with this one, I began in the playtest phase and ... it disheartened me. As such, I haven't checked it out yet. I'm wondering if it is even worth it. So I come to you guys in the hope that you can answer a few questions.

It's not perfectly balanced, but for reference I'd say that from the looks of things 5th is the second most balanced edition of the game, after 4th.

The minor action heal is in, as stated. It's a bit specialized though - there's nothing quite to the 4e Cleric of 3.5e Crusader standards.

Unique maneuvers aren't in as yet, and we just have grappling and normal attacking. With that said, the 5e classes do have some non-manuever powers, such as the Fighter having the ability to take two actions in a row every so often (I want to say it's per short rest, it might be per long rest). Combat manuevers are something that actually would add on modularly fairly well though, so I expect to see them.

I'd say that 5e is significantly more limited then 3e as to the situations it handles well and mechanical character diversity. It's just fine compared to 1e and 2e, and kind of feels like a redo of 3e. Personally, I'd consider it the D&D game I'm most willing to play at this point, despite the limitations.

Envyus
2014-07-26, 10:11 PM
No, I think I'll just play a game where I don't need to worry about it. Spell cards are little better than an srd or a PHB. It's still a pain in the ass.

I would look at the upcoming basic monsters before judging that because we only have 3 monsters that spell cast. 2 of them are just npc wizards with some slight differences. Because if there is only 10 monsters or so that require you to look up spells I think you are being a tad critical of something.

Personally I like Monster casters because of their versatility. If there is only a few of them they won't break up game play much. Just learn what they can cast before using them if your a gm.

Tengu_temp
2014-07-26, 10:12 PM
It's not perfectly balanced, but for reference I'd say that from the looks of things 5th is the second most balanced edition of the game, after 4th.


Do note that this is like winning second place in a race where only one participant has both legs.

Knaight
2014-07-27, 12:52 AM
Do note that this is like winning second place in a race where only one participant has both legs.

Sure, but as the OP liked previous editions and didn't find them unbalanced, 5e should be fine.

tcrudisi
2014-07-27, 04:29 AM
Sure, but as the OP liked previous editions and didn't find them unbalanced, 5e should be fine.

Mostly because I (we) didn't really think about it.

For example, in 3.x we actually used to take turns breaking the game. One of us would create the world-smashing character and the others would play support. Our games ended up being very short, not because of the fact that one character could do dang near everything, but because the support players would get bored and the game would fizzle. So we'd start a new one. We never really thought about how unbalanced the game was, we just sort of accepted it warts and all. We had a blast, absolutely. But a lot of that was in the "what could be" rather than the "what actually was."

It wasn't until 4e came out that we realized just how much (most of us) we valued having roughly equal power levels. We could actually function as a proper team. 4e certainly had a lot of flaws ... but I liken it to the difference between the MMOs Guild Wars 2 and every other MMO I have ever played. GW2 just does so many things right that I can't imagine playing a different MMO unless they also incorporate most or all of those changes, even though GW2 does a couple of things very, very poorly. I've experienced a more balanced system so now its something that I demand of the other rpgs that I play. I can try to play something else and work with the other players so that we at least start off roughly equal in power level, but that only lasts for a short time and it feels like I'm having to constrain myself in weird ways. Its a temporary solution that doesn't last long.

Don't get me wrong: I will almost certainly try out 5e just because it is the newest D&D. I wasn't excited about 4e when I first heard about it and I ended up loving it, so I'm not going to say that there's no way that I'll enjoy 5e, because there is a chance. If, like GW2, it does everything else so absolutely perfectly in ways that make me just love the system, even though it does that one thing so horribly wrong, then I can still love it. Unfortunately for me, it looks like that's what I'm going to have to hope for considering the answers that I received to my questions above (with only the healing one being a positive answer).

Beleriphon
2014-07-27, 07:45 AM
Don't get me wrong: I will almost certainly try out 5e just because it is the newest D&D. I wasn't excited about 4e when I first heard about it and I ended up loving it, so I'm not going to say that there's no way that I'll enjoy 5e, because there is a chance. If, like GW2, it does everything else so absolutely perfectly in ways that make me just love the system, even though it does that one thing so horribly wrong, then I can still love it. Unfortunately for me, it looks like that's what I'm going to have to hope for considering the answers that I received to my questions above (with only the healing one being a positive answer).

1) Fighters "only" kill stuff. If by only you mean doing average damage around 240 per round at 20th level. Which for high level creatures is between half and two-thirds of its hit points. So yes, you can "only" kill things using the most basic fighter subclass. Yes, spelling casting classes have tons of utility but they sacrifice that utility by only being able to do one really spiffy thing at once. So sure, a wizard can fly, and charm monsters, and do lots of stuff. But they can really only do one thing at a time barring a few minor exceptions, and if a set of fairly common actions happen to them in combat they stop doing their spiffy stuff.

2) Thus far the only character that gains access to healing spells is the cleric. Most of their healing spells require an action, but as noted there is a bonus action healing option. This is the option for the default healing cleric setup, other types may have something different.

3) Not as yet, although rogues do get the ability to use bonus actions for a bunch of stuff that is specifically attacking.

All that being said, if the starter set is any indication using magic like wands works for any characte willing to pick one up. So for the moment fighters fight using weapons. With the PHB release there maybe additional options for fighters fighting with weapons beyond making a pile of iterative attacks (which don't have to be focused on one target, and the fighter can move between each individual attack roll).

obryn
2014-07-27, 09:53 AM
Where are you getting 240 hp per round?

I don't see it anywhere close.

Doug Lampert
2014-07-27, 10:26 AM
Where are you getting 240 hp per round?

I don't see it anywhere close.

Well, you get 4 attacks per round with your +3 weapon and 29 strength because the DM gave you every useful artifact in the book and +2 for something else (weapon style probably).
So (2d6+3+9+2)x4 which gives about 90 when you consider that you reroll 1s and 2s the first time they come up.
But wait! There's more! You short rest for an hour after every 2 rounds of combat so double that since you never fight while not action surging.
But wait! There's more! You crit on an 18-20 and never miss so that means one or two of your 8 attacks does double damage.
But wait! There's more! The caster puts haste on you, the other caster buffs you with a damage buff, you get a bonus attack from somewhere (not two weapon fighting, you're using a two-hander, but somewhere). Then there's your reaction which of course you always get.

11 attacks with 2 crits and 25 or so damage per attack thanks to pretty well every bonus that could exist gives well over 240.

It's even better when you consider that you get advantage on every attack because you're awesome and the DM awards advantage to fighters because they are awesome and disadvantage to casters because they are wusses.

Now, of course magic items are not part of the assumed math and playing without any is how and when the balance is supposed to work, so the above is nonsense start to finish, but I'm pretty sure something like the above is how you get to over 240 damage a round.

Four attacks for 2d6+5+2 just won't do it, for the obvious reason that the maximum this fighter can do is far less than 240 even if every attack crits for max damage.

Beleriphon
2014-07-27, 01:10 PM
Where are you getting 240 hp per round?

I don't see it anywhere close.

It involves critcals and action surge, along with a greatsword. It was a post one of the longer discussion threads that I seem to have lost track of, or got buried at some point.

In fairness I didn't read that as closely as I should have, and it includes playtest material that may no longer be valid. I think its only fair to make that clear since I accused Lokaire in another thread of doing the same thing to support his view point.

And here's the post:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17740655&postcount=101


Now, of course magic items are not part of the assumed math and playing without any is how and when the balance is supposed to work, so the above is nonsense start to finish, but I'm pretty sure something like the above is how you get to over 240 damage a round.

Four attacks for 2d6+5+2 just won't do it, for the obvious reason that the maximum this fighter can do is far less than 240 even if every attack crits for max damage.

Without any magic items it sits around 75 per round.

Jigawatts
2014-07-27, 03:42 PM
Balance =/= Fun :smallwink:

Lord Raziere
2014-07-27, 03:55 PM
for selfish jerks who don't care if the rest of their party is not having fun with them, yes.

other people however, prefer to share the fun with everyone. I don't play RPGs to be the protagonist with everyone being a supporting character, nor do I play it to be a supporting character in another's story. I am better than that.

pwykersotz
2014-07-27, 04:22 PM
for selfish jerks who don't care if the rest of their party is not having fun with them, yes.

other people however, prefer to share the fun with everyone. I don't play RPGs to be the protagonist with everyone being a supporting character, nor do I play it to be a supporting character in another's story. I am better than that.

That's an unfair characterization. In 5e the various roles are necessary to maximize party capability and utility. Whether one class or another would win in a head-to-head match is irrelevant. Each class contributing fully does not necessarily indicate balance, nor vice-versa.

Jigawatts
2014-07-27, 04:27 PM
Perhaps you misinterpreted my meaning. Lets go with this instead:

Verisimilitude > Balance

Its all about the flavor, I need classes that are both flavorful and unique. I have always enjoyed the literary archetypes that differentiate the D&D classes. 4E bored me.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-27, 04:47 PM
That's an unfair characterization. In 5e the various roles are necessary to maximize party capability and utility. Whether one class or another would win in a head-to-head match is irrelevant. Each class contributing fully does not necessarily indicate balance, nor vice-versa.

you maximize the wizard solving everything?

pwykersotz
2014-07-27, 05:43 PM
you maximize the wizard solving everything?

Yes. That is what I said. Your comments are keen and witty. Well done. :smallsigh:

Lord Raziere
2014-07-27, 08:01 PM
Yes. That is what I said. Your comments are keen and witty. Well done. :smallsigh:

ok lets look at the roles:

fighter: be meat shield
rogue: get rid of traps
cleric: heal
wizard: solve all other problems.

doesn't look balanced to me, nor does it appeal to my sense of verisimilitude. no one man can solve lots of problems while some other solve only one. that makes no sense. if the wizard can solve so many, why not just replace the other three with constructs under his command and be done with it?

and even if I wanted to put a class in a flexible problem solver role, it certainly wouldn't be a wizard, that gives them too much power, they already warp reality why give them the ability to warp reality in many ways? no I'd instead put that role upon a rogue. they come from a background where'd they have to solve a wide range of problems using skills and creative thinking by default, without the potential of derailing everything, and makes for more of a challenge while doing so. and without introducing potential reality-warping all-solving shenanigans.

obryn
2014-07-27, 08:05 PM
Perhaps you misinterpreted my meaning. Lets go with this instead:

Verisimilitude > Balance
Yeah... I have exactly the opposite perspective. I'm playing a game, and I want it to function as a game, first and foremost.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-27, 08:10 PM
ok lets look at the roles:

fighter: be meat shield
rogue: get rid of traps
cleric: heal
wizard: solve all other problems.

doesn't look balanced to me, nor does it appeal to my sense of verisimilitude. no one man can solve lots of problems while some other solve only one. that makes no sense. if the wizard can solve so many, why not just replace the other three with constructs under his command and be done with it?

and even if I wanted to put a class in a flexible problem solver role, it certainly wouldn't be a wizard, that gives them too much power, they already warp reality why give them the ability to warp reality in many ways? no I'd instead put that role upon a rogue. they come from a background where'd they have to solve a wide range of problems using skills and creative thinking by default, without the potential of derailing everything, and makes for more of a challenge while doing so. and without introducing potential reality-warping all-solving shenanigans.

Isn't this more a moot point anyway? The potential to solve all problems is not solving all problems. The likelyhood the wizard has the required spells available, prepped, and ready, for all problems in a given day is small enough to ignore. It can't be solved by the wizard if he doesn't have the tools.

SiuiS
2014-07-27, 08:20 PM
This is an interesting question. I think it shows how memetic trends sort of dilute meaning. "Is it balanced?" Doesn't make sense on it's own. Balance is not an objective measure. A thing must be balanced around an idea, and is unbalanced if you don't have that idea. 1e was balanced around the notion that advancement would dilute and allow players to slow their progression and become masters of the world, re enacting much of the popular fiction it was based off. When you remove that idea you get level 40 fighters going toe to teo with gods.

Where is 5e balanced? What is the goal or structure to which all components are equal in measure?

Tholomyes
2014-07-27, 08:20 PM
Isn't this more a moot point anyway? The potential to solve all problems is not solving all problems. The likelyhood the wizard has the required spells available, prepped, and ready, for all problems in a given day is small enough to ignore. It can't be solved by the wizard if he doesn't have the tools.That'd be a reasonable (if not anywhere near perfect, or even all that desirable) check and balance to a wizard's power and utility, but from what I've heard, a lot of the problematic spells from 3e, like rope trick, which let you do many of the "Schrödinger's Wizard" things in 3.5. Now I don't know how much an issue it will be in 5e, since I don't know what changes, if any, were made to the spell, but it does worry me.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-27, 08:26 PM
Isn't this more a moot point anyway? The potential to solve all problems is not solving all problems. The likelyhood the wizard has the required spells available, prepped, and ready, for all problems in a given day is small enough to ignore. It can't be solved by the wizard if he doesn't have the tools.

yes but he can still potentially solve all problems and that is too much potential. either I include problems for him specifically tailored to his prepared spells today and therefore he solves too easily....or I tailor it so that the problems specifically can't be solve by his prepared spell list and he is useless. or do half and half he finds way of solving problems he wasn't meant to solve anyways. my sense of verisimilitude cannot abide by such preparation as it puts me in the position: how should I react to their plans? if they're too good I just can't let those plans succeed that would not be enough challenge, but neither can I let them fail completely and let it all go to waste. with such preparation I don't have a reliable way of judging their capabilities and knowing how to challenge them, and at any point- it might not be a challenge and therefore wasn't worth throwing at them.

therefore the DM is either making sure that the preparation is useless or that its too useful by what challenges they throw at the wizard, whats the middle ground? at least with a sorcerer, you know their capabilities are static and therefore not nearly as hard to challenge or plan for. meanwhile this is all ignoring the other players who might not be up to the challenges at all in other classes. thats too much time to devote to planning around one player in a game about teamwork.

Jigawatts
2014-07-27, 09:10 PM
Yeah... I have exactly the opposite perspective. I'm playing a game, and I want it to function as a game, first and foremost.
Its always interesting to hear differing viewpoints regarding the fundamentals. I prefer to see D&D as "interactive storytelling", where my party and I work as a cohesive unit to fight bad guys and save the world (or at least our little part of it), getting unique items of magical power and saving princesses along the way.

And while I will play wizard characters, when a good concept and backstory warrants it, my favorite class is the Ranger. :smallsmile:

Doug Lampert
2014-07-27, 09:12 PM
Insert mandatory "we can't judge without seeing the full system in play" comment.

Note that there are many important kinds of balance in a roleplaying game.

1) Party vs. World, can the party have an impact while not overwhelming everything?
2) Spotlight time, does every member of a party have a chance to shine and do something significant more or less every session?
3) Role balance, does removing any role or class from the party and replacing it with a duplicate of some other character in the party strengthen the party?
4) Functional balance, can every character reasonably perform the important activities of (a) get to the action, (b) participate effectively in the action, and (c) surviving the action.
5) Who wins a fight between two different PCs.

(5) Doesn't actually belong on the list, since this is a list of important kinds of balance, and that isn't important.

(1) Party vs. World: Problematical, for most foes it looks like throwing 40 peasants armed with slings at the problem would be more effective than sending adventurers. Finding 40 peasants willing to fight might be hard, but then the problem exists on both sides, I'm not sure what a mid-level party in fifth edition is supposed to do about an orc horde that isn't utterly stupid or incompetent.

All that said, the PCs are more powerful and effective than most people in the world, there will be problems only they or others like them can solve. They have a place.

It could work.

(2) Spotlight time: Again problematical. With the spell preparation system I'm not sure just why a high level caster WON'T always have an appropriate spell handy. You can scale up low level spells to effectively use your high level slots, and you get a lot of spells prepared.

Skills are too random and too small a bonus to be a really effective way for mundanes to keep up.

But spotlight time is one of the most group dependent things, and a fighter on garbage duty vs. foes already debuffed to near helplessness is still getting plenty of spotlight time.

It could work.

(3) Role balance: Probably broken, but not nearly as badly as in 3.x. All it takes is one low level summons spell being in the PHB on the cleric list and I'm going to wonder seriously just how Cleric/Cleric/Cleric/Wizard ISN'T stronger than a conventional party. A cleric can tank as well as a fighter, and between cantrips and spells the damage should be adequate and we still haven't seen the Bard or Druid or Warlock or Sorcerer.

This was where balance broke worst in 3.x, Cleric/Cleric/Druid/Wizard was just blatantly better than Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard. I can't see much hope for fifth edition here, but it will be much better than 3.x.

Given that 3.x was fairly successful, much better is probably than 3.x is clearly more than good enough for many people.

Heck it may be good enough for me. I dislike 5e for other reasons.

(4) Functional balance: I suspect this is where 5e will collapse. In 3.x a fighter couldn't fly, and everyone needed to be able to fly by level 10 or so. But the fighter could BUY an item that would let him fly. In 3.x a fighter couldn't heal, but he could buy items that would allow or enable healing and he's only a one level dip in Ranger away from being able to use a magic stick of CLW. In 3.x there were any number of foes effectively immune to one or more mundane classes, but you could almost always get items to help with this.

Basically, items are the traditional D&D method to deal with most functional balance problems. But in 5e we're told that items aren't part of the assumed balance and that the system is supposed to work without any items at all.... Really? The no magic item fighter's damage is a pitiful joke. He can't reach the foes, he can't deal with them if he does reach them, and ultimately he can't survive because by level 20 1d10+20 healing then you need to wait an hour to heal is barely better than nothing.

I suspect if the DM drops appropriate fighter items right and left that the fighter may be able to remain relevant, but that the "no feats, no items" basic fighter will be a bad joke.

This is where having the full system would help, if we knew what sorts of items are supposed to drop how often and what the feats actually do we'd have a better idea of whether the fighter can keep up in a typical game.

So, all IMAO of course:
1) Party vs. World: 5e PCs may be weak for many people's taste.
2) Spotlight time: Too group and style dependent to say yet.
3) Role balance: Casters are probably too strong, but not yet by anything like as much as in 3.x. Of course so far we've only seen the evoker wizard and healbot cleric. I may be too optimistic here.
4) Functional balance: Needs items or else it's probably badly broken. Thus you can't judge yet.
5) Who wins a fight between two different PCs: Who cares?

Doorhandle
2014-07-27, 09:21 PM
Before we go on I have a thing (http://forum.chocolatepi.net/showthread.php?tid=197) or two to share (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/05/19/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty/).

SiuiS
2014-07-27, 09:32 PM
Thanks, Doug.


for selfish jerks who don't care if the rest of their party is not having fun with them, yes.

other people however, prefer to share the fun with everyone. I don't play RPGs to be the protagonist with everyone being a supporting character, nor do I play it to be a supporting character in another's story. I am better than that.

That is not a function of a balanced game. That is a function of a balanced group.


ok lets look at the roles:

fighter: be meat shield
rogue: get rid of traps
cleric: heal
wizard: solve all other problems.

doesn't look balanced to me, nor does it appeal to my sense of verisimilitude. no one man can solve lots of problems while some other solve only one. that makes no sense. if the wizard can solve so many, why not just replace the other three with constructs under his command and be done with it?

and even if I wanted to put a class in a flexible problem solver role, it certainly wouldn't be a wizard, that gives them too much power, they already warp reality why give them the ability to warp reality in many ways? no I'd instead put that role upon a rogue. they come from a background where'd they have to solve a wide range of problems using skills and creative thinking by default, without the potential of derailing everything, and makes for more of a challenge while doing so. and without introducing potential reality-warping all-solving shenanigans.

Here's where you err, friend.

The last time I played a wizard, I was indeed able to solve every problem. I drove the game. But I specifically tended to the fun of other people; the archer wouldn't be able to compete with enemies without me. The Druid was unable to figure out why he had no animal companion without me. The rogue had no base of operations without me. The sorcerer wouldn't have been revived without me. Anything that requires magical knowledge came through me.

Sure, the DM hated me, but that was as much for not letting him shut down other players (power word kill at level 4 to establish dominance; denied Druid animal companion in order to keep his power level down; put archer into area with zero wealth, denied any hospitality to any player due to "political circumstances") as anything else.

Having the ability to break the system does not mean you will.

Envyus
2014-07-27, 09:35 PM
In 5e while they have the power to solve any problem they can't solve every problem even at high level. Plus players are probably going to be conservative with their very few spell slots.

Tholomyes
2014-07-27, 09:40 PM
Before we go on I have a thing (http://forum.chocolatepi.net/showthread.php?tid=197) or two to share (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/05/19/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty/).While there is truth to the fact that brand loyalty is a powerful factor, I'd argue that it's not a smoking gun that everything is just rationalizations. People have preferences that are independent from system. While there are cases where brand loyalty overwhelms rational decision making (i.e. I've seen people claim that balance is bad, not simply because they fear that you give up too much of something they value as more important, but that it is actively detrimental, even all other things being equal, simply because they picked the 3e side of the 3e vs 4e edition war. Likewise, I've seen people argue that 4e's math is perfect, despite the several math fixes, such as weapon expertise, ect, that were required for the math assumptions to remain correct, simply because they chose the other side of the edition war), but I think a lot of peoples' preferred playstyles and preferences in terms of certain rules, are independent of system (though they may be reinforced by the systems they play and have fun with, it's evident if you've ever tried to introduce someone to RPGs, you can find many of the same preferences that the article tries to describe as "rationalizations" even without any predetermined brand-loyalty; perhaps not as nuanced, since they don't have a feel of the rules fully or alternatives to the specific rules, but still evident)

Jigawatts
2014-07-27, 10:00 PM
Honestly I would prefer if magic leaned more the way of 1E/2E, than 3E (and they've somewhat done that in 5E). Where magic could be dangerous and have detriments and drawbacks. That was the true problem of 3E style magic, it kept about the same power level (or even increased it in some cases), while also removing almost all the drawbacks. Things like magical aging, randomized effects, reflecting lightning bolts, memorization times, non-automatic spell learning, declared actions with successful attacks automatically disrupting a spell, and even d4 HP all went into the "balancing" of the mage.

MeeposFire
2014-07-27, 10:03 PM
Honestly I would prefer if magic leaned more the way of 1E/2E, than 3E (and they've somewhat done that in 5E). Where magic could be dangerous and have detriments and drawbacks. That was the true problem of 3E style magic, it kept about the same power level (or even increased it in some cases), while also removing almost all the drawbacks. Things like magical aging, randomized effects, reflecting lightning bolts, memorization times, non-automatic spell learning, declared actions with successful attacks automatically disrupting a spell, and even d4 HP all went into the "balancing" of the mage.

I agree with you in spirit though I hope we don't bring back all of those detriments. For instance I hated the 1 year aging on haste. I would have vastly preferred using some sort of fatigue (which made more sense to me anyways) or other problem (or just rebalance the spell to be a little bit weaker).

Envyus
2014-07-27, 10:09 PM
I agree with you in spirit though I hope we don't bring back all of those detriments. For instance I hated the 1 year aging on haste. I would have vastly preferred using some sort of fatigue (which made more sense to me anyways) or other problem (or just rebalance the spell to be a little bit weaker).

Well that's how it works here. It stuns you for a round after it wears off.

Jeraa
2014-07-27, 10:18 PM
Honestly I would prefer if magic leaned more the way of 1E/2E, than 3E (and they've somewhat done that in 5E). Where magic could be dangerous and have detriments and drawbacks. That was the true problem of 3E style magic, it kept about the same power level (or even increased it in some cases), while also removing almost all the drawbacks. Things like magical aging, randomized effects, reflecting lightning bolts, memorization times, non-automatic spell learning, declared actions with successful attacks automatically disrupting a spell, and even d4 HP all went into the "balancing" of the mage.

Magical aging was bad. Mostly because any form of magical aging required the character to make a System Shock roll, or die. Almost nothing worse than trying to buff the party fighter with Haste and killing him instead. (The only thing worse would probably have been failing the Resurrection Survival roll, and dieing from being brought back to life.)

Tvtyrant
2014-07-28, 12:10 AM
Magical aging was bad. Mostly because any form of magical aging required the character to make a System Shock roll, or die. Almost nothing worse than trying to buff the party fighter with Haste and killing him instead. (The only thing worse would probably have been failing the Resurrection Survival roll, and dieing from being brought back to life.)

But not as bad as XP drain, which had no drawbacks. The best system they ever made IMO was Craft Points, but it never got the attention it deserved. Craft Points, Residuum and Rituals were all things that should have gotten more attention but never did in my opinion.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-28, 01:31 AM
In 5e while they have the power to solve any problem they can't solve every problem even at high level. Plus players are probably going to be conservative with their very few spell slots.

so you solve the problem of wizards casting spells by making sure that they might as well not be wizards at all, and just be scholars uselessly standing around. how interesting.

@ Siuis:
so your all-problem solving was "justified" by a jerk DM? In a balanced system solving everyone elses problems would not be needed, however bad DM's will be eternal and systems will not stop them overruling the rules with their own houserules, and therefore system does not matter when the DM itself is bad, and is not a problem of the system because systems cannot be used to solve DM jerkery. systems are an in-game way of establishing fairness, out of game fairness is something that can only be solved by out of game plans. using the system's brokenness to solve something that can only properly be solved out of game is not solving the problem, its only descending to their level. and if you really cannot reason with the bad DM, the saying "no gaming is better than bad gaming" comes to mind- leave. its not worth getting stressed out over.

anyone who thinks that a system will solve bad DMing is forgetting that a DM can and will make their own rules anyways. your "solution" is like trying to solve the problem of someone who hacked a videogame by playing as hard as you can- it doesn't matter how hard you play it or whether you took all the right customization options, the hacker has hacked the game- they have already gone beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct for said game, and no matter you do, you won't win, the only way to get rid of the hacking jerk is to alert the people outside the videogame who can get rid of them. your story about how you helped your group is an exercise in futility.

Envyus
2014-07-28, 02:07 AM
so you solve the problem of wizards casting spells by making sure that they might as well not be wizards at all, and just be scholars uselessly standing around. how interesting.


You completely ignored what I said. I stated that while the Wizard can solve any problem in the game the way they are set up they can't solve every problem due to how much more limited they are and how they solve them is more or less a last resort anyway. Hell lots of it's spell are meant to buff the other members of the party and make them better.

Also I said that most Wizards will probably play conservatively with their limited spell slots. They get so few so they would want to save them until they feel they are needed or will seriously help. This does not mean they will be standing around uselessly.

Lets say you don't have a Rogue and wanted to open a lock. The Wizard would be useful and needed here if he prepared Knock. If a Rogue was here however the Rogue should do it. Because if the Wizard does it will create a noise that will attract every monster within 300 ft of them and waste one of his at max 3 level 2 slots. If the Rogue does it none of that will happen and the lock will just be opened.

Person_Man
2014-07-28, 08:08 AM
5E is more balanced then 1E, 2E, or 3E (or PF). It is less balanced then 4E by far.

They fixed a lot of issues. They honestly did. But their design goal was basically to recreate 2E/3E/PF in order to recapture those players as customers. So 5E retains most (but not all) of the inherent balance flaws of those editions.

There are different Tiers of classes. Magic is much more powerful and flexible then non-magic. The resource management/balance mechanic for magical classes is spell slots, which can be refilled and manipulated very easily. The math breaks down at high levels because non-Proficient Saves don't scale and you can manipulate bonuses with magic and magic items. Some magic items don't require Attunement. Some potent buff spells don't require Concentration (like Foresight). There is no daily maximum on the amount of healing you can receive. And so on.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-28, 10:36 AM
Perhaps you misinterpreted my meaning. Lets go with this instead:

Verisimilitude > Balance

That strikes me as 3E's approach (whereas 4E has the opposite, of course). 5E instead goes by

Simplicity > Versimilitude and Balance

omniknight
2014-07-28, 11:54 AM
For my answer I am going to assume you mean "Are the character classes balanced?"

Short answer: Yes, per the design goals WotC had in mind for 5e.

Longer answer:

WotC designed 5e to be a more streamlined, more accessible, and less outright breakable version of 3.X/PF. They wanted to drastically lower the barrier to entry for new players but also recapture the 3.X players they lost because 4e was such a departure and polarizing edition. Time will tell if they are successful but my impression is things look promising.

The return to a more 3.X-type of gameplay and rules does naturally mean pure spellcasters have more IC and OOC options available to them than mundanes and hybrids do. However, with 5e WoTC has put some serious caps on spellcasting dominance to the point that, IMO, some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. Examples of spellcasting caps:


Greatly decreased the number of daily spell slots, especially for higher levels (only 1 8th and 1 9th per day)
Reworked Concentration mechanic so only one spell that requires Concentration can be maintained at a time (this includes many of the strongest buffs and utility spells)
If a spell is cast as a "bonus action," only a Cantrip may be cast as part of the standard action
A nerfed version of Metamagic is exclusive to Sorcerers

There are other checks on spellcasting but off the top of my head these are the main ones.

All of this culminates into spellcasters no longer being able to outclass hybrids and mundanes at what they were designed to be good at, and therefore they can have a worthwhile place in a party. Of course the argument can be made that side-by-side spellcasters have more abilities and general usefulness than others both IC and OOC. There is no denying that is true, but according to WotC design focus and playtest feedback this not an unacceptable thing. A lot of players do not want to be "swiss army knives" and instead prefer simpler but viable classes that excel at a few things, and 5e gives them that.

Lokiare
2014-07-28, 12:28 PM
For my answer I am going to assume you mean "Are the character classes balanced?"

Short answer: Yes, per the design goals WotC had in mind for 5e.

Longer answer:

WotC designed 5e to be a more streamlined, more accessible, and less outright breakable version of 3.X/PF. They wanted to drastically lower the barrier to entry for new players but also recapture the 3.X players they lost because 4e was such a departure and polarizing edition. Time will tell if they are successful but my impression is things look promising.

The return to a more 3.X-type of gameplay and rules does naturally mean pure spellcasters have more IC and OOC options available to them than mundanes and hybrids do. However, with 5e WoTC has put some serious caps on spellcasting dominance to the point that, IMO, some people are making a mountain out of a molehill. Examples of spellcasting caps:


Greatly decreased the number of daily spell slots, especially for higher levels (only 1 8th and 1 9th per day)
Reworked Concentration mechanic so only one spell that requires Concentration can be maintained at a time (this includes many of the strongest buffs and utility spells)
If a spell is cast as a "bonus action," only a Cantrip may be cast as part of the standard action
A nerfed version of Metamagic is exclusive to Sorcerers

There are other checks on spellcasting but off the top of my head these are the main ones.

All of this culminates into spellcasters no longer being able to outclass hybrids and mundanes at what they were designed to be good at, and therefore they can have a worthwhile place in a party. Of course the argument can be made that side-by-side spellcasters have more abilities and general usefulness than others both IC and OOC. There is no denying that is true, but according to WotC design focus and playtest feedback this not an unacceptable thing. A lot of players do not want to be "swiss army knives" and instead prefer simpler but viable classes that excel at a few things, and 5e gives them that.

"Good thing we stopped that Tyrant from making 100 intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles and they only made 10. We totally won, and there are no problems."

I'm sorry but removing 10% of the problems of early editions is not a victory when the previous edition (whether you liked it or not) removed 90% of the problems.

Its better but its still no where near playable if you like the Mythic, "fun as an obstacle course" play style.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-28, 12:47 PM
"Good thing we stopped that Tyrant from making 100 intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles and they only made 10. We totally won, and there are no problems."

I'm sorry but removing 10% of the problems of early editions is not a victory when the previous edition (whether you liked it or not) removed 90% of the problems.

Its better but its still no where near playable if you like the Mythic, "fun as an obstacle course" play style.

This is a very narrow definition. For personal taste, it's completely reasonable. But the question was "is it balanced".
Which alludes to "balanced against itself mechanically". The style of play is not being questioned.

hawklost
2014-07-28, 01:00 PM
"Good thing we stopped that Tyrant from making 100 intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles and they only made 10. We totally won, and there are no problems."

I'm sorry but removing 10% of the problems of early editions is not a victory when the previous edition (whether you liked it or not) removed 90% of the problems.

Its better but its still no where near playable if you like the Mythic, "fun as an obstacle course" play style.

Lokiare, if you are so supportive of 4e and find it a better product, then Wizards has a plan for you. You can continue playing 4th edition.

If you are like many of the rest of us who are happily looking forward to 5e though, then when they said it would be a revamp of 3.x you cheered. (opinion only>> 4e was terrible and ruined DnD for a time. It was rarely fun, the roleplaying felt more like rollplaying then ever and it was very very easy for a DM to accidentally put monsters together that slaughtered the party or made a fight last over an hour <<opinion only).

You call it removing only 10% of the problem terrible. A lot of us see it as scaling down the worst parts of 3.x and PF. With those scaled down, we are happy to play 5e.

If you remove 90% of a 'problem' in a game where you are considering ALL magic to be a problem, you pretty much completely changed the game (which is what 4e did). If you were to throw different names on everything in 4e and had someone (who played DnD in the past 1,2 or 3.x) play it with those new naming conventions, then they would not have known it was DnD at all. On the other hand, throw 5e with different naming conventions and they will probably make comments like "This is really similar to 3.x or 2 or 1".

(Opinion>>
As for your claims of it not being playable if you like the Mythic. That is BS. It is not playable if you are a Rules Lawyer who has to have everything done exactly as said in the book and don't actually want a DM to have an imagination. If you actually believe that your DM should come up with ideas on their own though and play for the fun of the group though, it works better. Heck, I believe 3.5 with all the splat books or Pathfinder with all the splat books is more fun than 4e, even IF you let the players run wild with the overpowered class mixes.
<<Opinion)

I believe that the only people who want a game to be perfectly uniform at all times is those that are Rules Lawyers. Those people who want to figure out some way to game the system to their advantage but make sure that when they jump to a different group for some reason, they can do it over again without worry.

omniknight
2014-07-28, 01:13 PM
"Good thing we stopped that Tyrant from making 100 intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles and they only made 10. We totally won, and there are no problems."

I'm sorry but removing 10% of the problems of early editions is not a victory when the previous edition (whether you liked it or not) removed 90% of the problems.

Its better but its still no where near playable if you like the Mythic, "fun as an obstacle course" play style.

You meant your analogy as a knock against 5e but actually I think it is apt for what WotC was going for.

"Nukes" in D&D are fun for the player that uses them but if the game system gives them too many then, yes, it breaks the game and other classes are constantly overshadowed. In 3.X spellcasters had so many they could effectively use them indiscriminately. 5e paring it down from 1000/day to ~2/day is meaningful because spellcasters have to be much more selective and purposeful with them. Once they are gone (or they are conserved for later encounters), the spellcaster as a whole is much less effective and other 5e classes that have a consistent powerlevel throughout the day can shine.

Also, for all its warts 3.X was and is way more popular than 4e. 3.X's milkshake brought the boys to the yard whereas 4e was too polarizing to truly be called successful. From a business standpoint if you do not learn from your mistakes as well as your successes you eventually cease to exist. It makes sense that WotC would pivot away from 4e back to 3.X but more streamlined and balanced. Lamenting 5e as a few steps backwards from 4e is to miss the bigger picture of what WotC is trying to accomplish.

Lokiare
2014-07-28, 01:20 PM
This is a very narrow definition. For personal taste, it's completely reasonable. But the question was "is it balanced".
Which alludes to "balanced against itself mechanically". The style of play is not being questioned.

They style of play dictates what 'balanced against itself mechanically' means. Without taking the play style into question you are just guessing. Which appears to me to be what Mearls and Co. were doing when they designed 5e.


Lokiare, if you are so supportive of 4e and find it a better product, then Wizards has a plan for you. You can continue playing 4th edition.

Actually WotC's plan was to support all major play styles of previous editions. Let me check. Yep, 4E was a previous edition to 5E, therefore 5E is supposed to include us 4E players in its play style list.


If you are like many of the rest of us who are happily looking forward to 5e though, then when they said it would be a revamp of 3.x you cheered. (opinion only>> 4e was terrible and ruined DnD for a time. It was rarely fun, the roleplaying felt more like rollplaying then ever and it was very very easy for a DM to accidentally put monsters together that slaughtered the party or made a fight last over an hour <<opinion only).

Strange I have the exact same thoughts about 3.x and 5E.


You call it removing only 10% of the problem terrible. A lot of us see it as scaling down the worst parts of 3.x and PF. With those scaled down, we are happy to play 5e.

Sure some people don't have balance as a consideration. Lots of us do though. See it all goes back to what style of fun you enjoy. If you enjoy good stories and exploring a world created by another person then you probably enjoy every edition of D&D except when something broken interrupts that. If you are like us though, you not only enjoy a good story and exploration, but you also enjoy playing within a system that works well and doesn't break down. In that case 5E has most of the same problems as editions previous to 4E and is a lesser product for our type of fun.


If you remove 90% of a 'problem' in a game where you are considering ALL magic to be a problem, you pretty much completely changed the game (which is what 4e did). If you were to throw different names on everything in 4e and had someone (who played DnD in the past 1,2 or 3.x) play it with those new naming conventions, then they would not have known it was DnD at all. On the other hand, throw 5e with different naming conventions and they will probably make comments like "This is really similar to 3.x or 2 or 1".

Actually, why don't you take all the 4E fighter powers break them into small groups and hand them out via feats in 3E and see if anyone can tell the difference (well I mean other than the fighter becoming effective that is).

Since 4E uses the same ability scores, resolution mechanic (1d20 beat a target number), initiative, daily vancian spells, similar skills, etc...etc... I'm sure they would make the same connection. In fact I've shown in other threads where some 1E and 2E players skipped 3E and played 4E because it felt more old school to them (and no, I'm not digging it up, you can do that on your own with a quick www.startpage.com search).


(Opinion>>
As for your claims of it not being playable if you like the Mythic. That is BS. It is not playable if you are a Rules Lawyer who has to have everything done exactly as said in the book and don't actually want a DM to have an imagination. If you actually believe that your DM should come up with ideas on their own though and play for the fun of the group though, it works better. Heck, I believe 3.5 with all the splat books or Pathfinder with all the splat books is more fun than 4e, even IF you let the players run wild with the overpowered class mixes.
<<Opinion)

I believe that the only people who want a game to be perfectly uniform at all times is those that are Rules Lawyers. Those people who want to figure out some way to game the system to their advantage but make sure that when they jump to a different group for some reason, they can do it over again without worry.

Hilarious. Sorry, but you are beginning to use insulting language, internet memes, and logical fallacies. It appears you don't have a lot of facts to back up your side of the argument. You are entitled to like or not like something all you want, but please at least stick to the facts or just flat out say you don't like it. No need to revert to internet memes that have been proven false a thousand times or use insults.

I'm not saying you are wrong for liking 5E. I'm saying WotC is wrong for telling us (fans of the 4E mythic 'fun as an obstacle course' play style) that it would cater to our play style and then made it clearly cater to a different much narrower play style.

Some reading that might help you understand my point of view:

http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

For clarification:
Insulting another play style
Internet Meme
Exploration and Expression fun types being more important than 'fun as an obstacle course' fun type. nothing wrong with it, just different preferences.
The logical fallacy is that you can't enjoy mechanics and still enjoy role playing.

hawklost
2014-07-28, 01:43 PM
Hilarious. Sorry, but you are beginning to use insulting language, internet memes, and logical fallacies. It appears you don't have a lot of facts to back up your side of the argument. You are entitled to like or not like something all you want, but please at least stick to the facts or just flat out say you don't like it. No need to revert to internet memes that have been proven false a thousand times or use insults.

I'm not saying you are wrong for liking 5E. I'm saying WotC is wrong for telling us (fans of the 4E mythic 'fun as an obstacle course' play style) that it would cater to our play style and then made it clearly cater to a different much narrower play style.

Some reading that might help you understand my point of view:

http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

For clarification:
Insulting another play style
Internet Meme
Exploration and Expression fun types being more important than 'fun as an obstacle course' fun type. nothing wrong with it, just different preferences.
The logical fallacy is that you can't enjoy mechanics and still enjoy role playing.

Funny on that, I made sure you could understand that that was an OPINION of mine. Funny thing about opinions, they are based on feelings more than anything and in no way shape or form require facts to back them up.

Second, calling someone a Rules Lawyer is only an insult to those who don't want to acknowledge that is what they do. There are many good players and DMs who are rules lawyers, they will only do what is allowable inside of a book (or rules if added on). These are the only things they can and will do. In no way does that make them terrible players unless they try to enforce the rules for their advantage. Min/Maxer would be an insult, saying that you only want to play the game by following only what is in the rules (and not the spirit of the rules) would be a rules lawyer (sure, some only do it to min/max, but it is not required).

You have been insulting other people's play style and preferences the entire time. All you do is pull up random numbers for very specific times and say "This is why your game sucks". Instead, why don't you get someone who likes the 5e Fighter and someone who likes a 5e Wizard, tell them to build it to levels 1,5,10,20 and then throw scenarios at them (better yet, find a DM who isn't overly biased into hating the system to throw many different scenarios, otherwise I am sure the situations will be biased towards the wizard doing your 'I win' tactics only). Once you have done this, lets go for how statistics really work and do it at least 9-99 more times with different people. Once you have that kind of numbers backing you, I will believe you.

As for your claiming I or anyone else who disagrees with you not having the 'facts to back up our claims'. Well, even if we had all the facts in the world, you are a kind of person who throws them out because they do not fit your world view. People have been pointing out how fighters can be as good and all you do is say "Yea, but if I maximize my wizard this way, he is better in this situation", then they say, but a Fighter would be better at this then with no changes and you say "But if I change my spec to do this, the Wizard beats the fighter again!".


I mean look at your arguments on other threads. I will paraphrase since I am not going to pull each one exactly. If you wish to argue these, I will go out of my way to pull up each one in conjecture with my paraphrasing and allow others to determine the truth of my claims.
"Summoning a high level humonoid and Dominating him trivializes encounters".
Answer, what if he breaks free?, "Only use low will save monsters!",
what happens if the wizard loses concentration "Well, he will hide and only pop out to give directions"
What about dispelling Dominate Monster? "Even if he loses it, he will just cast it again and continue trivializing the encounter"
What is you can't cast Dominate on him? "Well, of course I will use Charm on him, he won't attack his Friend and allies then!"
Why would he attack the enemies when he Knows he was forced by you, his friend (and his friends allies). "Because that is ridiculous, I am his old friend now!"
What If that doesn't work "Then I will change my idea to making a deal with him first, then summon him with Gate when I feel like it.

What if the DM uses this against your later? "WHAT?! DMs aren't allowed to take my toys away, that's terrible DMing!"

That has been your responses to people who show you your wizard is not all powerful. You wave your hand and say "Well, it works cause I say so and the DM has to agree".

As for claiming that a meme is false, that depends on the group. You have your own opinion on how DnD Must be run, others have their own opinion on how they prefer the groups they are in to run.

And your logical fallacy is that the mechanics must all be there and 'balanced' (by your arbitrary means of number crunching) for you to enjoy roleplaying.

Person_Man
2014-07-28, 01:47 PM
5E instead goes by Simplicity > Versimilitude and Balance

I would propose editing that slightly to Tradition > Simplicity > Verisimilitude > Balance

Mearl's has been remarkably responsive to questions about the game via Twitter and interviews. Most of his answers have fallen into one of four categories, in this order of frequency:

1) That's what most of the playtesters said they want, and what most of the playtesters said they want is whatever their favorite previous edition of D&D is. So we're going to make 5E "feel like" previous editions of D&D as much as possible.

2) That's the simplest way we could implement #1.

3) Simulationist/Verisimilitude arguments: Example: "@MonumentGames : any suggestions on dealing with reach weapon/attack making a creature worse at OAs and containing ranged opponents than nonreach? @mikemearls : it's a trade off between long reach and better control. longer reach is a little clumsier and less reactive." Mearls had a lot of answers like this.

4) Kludged balance fixes: These things appear to be added after the fact when they found out that making a decision based on #1-3 lead to balance problems. But they weren't implemented in a systematic way, because doing so would entail breaking from one or more of the above. For example, Concentration exists for some but not all spell buffs because if it was systematic then Mage Armor and Foresight would be a lot different from their traditional uses, Attunement rules exist for some but not all magic items because if players were really limited to three magic items then a lot of the traditional but only modestly useful magic items from previous editions would be garbage, etc.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-28, 01:53 PM
They style of play dictates what 'balanced against itself mechanically' means. Without taking the play style into question you are just guessing. Which appears to me to be what Mearls and Co. were doing when they designed 5e.


How does play style dictate if Fighter ability X gained at 10th level is of equivalent usefulness and power level to Cleric ability X gained at 10th level? Did we use the same math to build both abilities? Will this ability outshine/be used more than ability X gained at 10th level by the Rogue?

CyberThread
2014-07-28, 01:59 PM
Dnd wasc never about balance it was about archtypes. You are living the tropes of the game and the historical heratige that it comes with.

If your asking me how a muggle can be balanced with someone who can summon demons ... you can't. Besides plot armor.

The casters are meant too enhance others not become Solo god kings.

Jigawatts
2014-07-28, 02:07 PM
Lokaire, most people just dont like 4th Edition, and if it had been a long term financially successful game we wouldn't be having these discussions right now. Instead it was a failure, because in many peoples minds "it wasn't D&D" (which is subjective of coarse, but somehow turned out to be pretty uniform). Then Paizo continued a game people were used to while also making all the right PR moves, WotC's own actions set up the perfect storm against them. Regarding "1E/2E players feeling 4E is more old school", lol, please go to the Dragonsfoot forums and post that little gem there, I look forward to the resulting humor.

The game isn't about strict, hard-nosed balance, its about "being D&D", and thank God for that. If that is what you desire then (non-4E) D&D is not the game for you.

But it doesn't matter what anyone on here says, you wont stop posting condescending replies and continuing to mire everyone in bitterness and negativity (come to think of it, I've never seen a post of yours on here that is overwhelmingly positive about anything).

Lokiare
2014-07-28, 02:10 PM
Funny on that, I made sure you could understand that that was an OPINION of mine. Funny thing about opinions, they are based on feelings more than anything and in no way shape or form require facts to back them up.

Your opinion is fine. The internet meme's, insults, and whatnot are not fine and only stir up emotions and start fights. You are trying to justify your opinion with meme's, insults, and other things. That is not constructive.


Second, calling someone a Rules Lawyer is only an insult to those who don't want to acknowledge that is what they do. There are many good players and DMs who are rules lawyers, they will only do what is allowable inside of a book (or rules if added on). These are the only things they can and will do. In no way does that make them terrible players unless they try to enforce the rules for their advantage. Min/Maxer would be an insult, saying that you only want to play the game by following only what is in the rules (and not the spirit of the rules) would be a rules lawyer (sure, some only do it to min/max, but it is not required).

You used it in an insulting sentence implying that if you follow the rules you are a rules lawyer you can't possibly have an imagination and that the only way to play D&D is to trick the DM into letting you bend or break the rules. That is patently not true. Many people play within the rules of the game never invoking rule 0 because that is what they find fun.

Also I'm proudly a Min/Maxer and I role play too. Not only that Min/Maxing is role playing because your character would have taken every advantage that would allow them to be in less danger and be more effective.


You have been insulting other people's play style and preferences the entire time. All you do is pull up random numbers for very specific times and say "This is why your game sucks". Instead, why don't you get someone who likes the 5e Fighter and someone who likes a 5e Wizard, tell them to build it to levels 1,5,10,20 and then throw scenarios at them (better yet, find a DM who isn't overly biased into hating the system to throw many different scenarios, otherwise I am sure the situations will be biased towards the wizard doing your 'I win' tactics only). Once you have done this, lets go for how statistics really work and do it at least 9-99 more times with different people. Once you have that kind of numbers backing you, I will believe you.

I have not been insulting anything. I've shown where the math and mechanics of the game break down. I've explained why this is unacceptable to people that play with certain play styles. I've intentionally shied away from using insulting words and tried to explain myself in a way that gets my points across without hurting peoples feelings. If you can point out where I insulted you or anyone else, I'll avoid using that same language to convey my points. :smallsmile:

If you want real statistics, because any encounter is made up of multiple d20 rolls (at least 1 per round per character/monster) you are going to have to run those encounters around 4,000 times each to get proper statistics. Something WotC could have done with the open play test, but chose not to. I'm pointing out broken combinations that will commonly come up. Players could stumble upon these kinds of things completely by accident and ruin a game.


As for your claiming I or anyone else who disagrees with you not having the 'facts to back up our claims'. Well, even if we had all the facts in the world, you are a kind of person who throws them out because they do not fit your world view. People have been pointing out how fighters can be as good and all you do is say "Yea, but if I maximize my wizard this way, he is better in this situation", then they say, but a Fighter would be better at this then with no changes and you say "But if I change my spec to do this, the Wizard beats the fighter again!".

More insults won't get you anything. I only respond to facts. I also change my opinion about those facts when presented with them. For instance I've been corrected a few times about the effects of some spells and have changed my view on whether those spells are overpowered or not. I did this openly and admitted to it. I think you are assuming things that are not in evidence here.

As far as I can tell no one has pointed out how a Fighter can be better in any way beyond "trick the DM into breaking the rules" which means nothing about the game (it means quite a bit about the DM and player relationship, but nothing about the game). If your strategy for being an effective fighter rests on bringing the snacks and flowery descriptions (something anyone can do, yes even the casters) then the game has more problems than I thought it did. :smallsmile:


I mean look at your arguments on other threads. I will paraphrase since I am not going to pull each one exactly. If you wish to argue these, I will go out of my way to pull up each one in conjecture with my paraphrasing and allow others to determine the truth of my claims.
"Summoning a high level humonoid and Dominating him trivializes encounters".
Answer, what if he breaks free?, "Only use low will save monsters!",
what happens if the wizard loses concentration "Well, he will hide and only pop out to give directions"
What about dispelling Dominate Monster? "Even if he loses it, he will just cast it again and continue trivializing the encounter"
What is you can't cast Dominate on him? "Well, of course I will use Charm on him, he won't attack his Friend and allies then!"
Why would he attack the enemies when he Knows he was forced by you, his friend (and his friends allies). "Because that is ridiculous, I am his old friend now!"
What If that doesn't work "Then I will change my idea to making a deal with him first, then summon him with Gate when I feel like it.

Yes, let's straw man a bit or just paraphrase in an demeaning manner in order to try to win emotional votes.
Those are all valid and after a few sessions of play its the course most players would take.

"I guess we have to find the name of an unwise outsider next time."
"Hmm. that guy got me I better stay out of sight so I don't get hit."
"Oh, no. I lost control of it, quick do I have any spells that I can use to get it back? Yep, I can use Dominate in a lower level slot to get control back, nice."
"I'm out of slots I can use on dominate. Let me see, aha I have Charm prepared now I can at least neutralize it."
"Look he's standing there doing nothing while those monsters are wailing on him. I think the DM fell asleep again."
"Well that dominate thing didn't work, maybe we should try to find a friendly outsider that is willing to help us. Maybe we can pay them some money or do favors for them or something."

I was thinking over the course of many session that the players strategies would evolve. I mean if I can think these things up in minutes, surely the average player could figure them out over the course of weeks or months.


What if the DM uses this against your later? "WHAT?! DMs aren't allowed to take my toys away, that's terrible DMing!"

Actually I said it was fine, but that if the DM did it over and over it would get old and become unbelievable. Its also not a fun thing to have everything you do countered. My example in my post was what happens when a fighter comes up against high AC creatures that have resistance or immunity to his attacks often? They would get just as frustrated.


That has been your responses to people who show you your wizard is not all powerful. You wave your hand and say "Well, it works cause I say so and the DM has to agree".

And a straw man and insult all wrapped into one. I'm not even going to respond to this one as it was taken care of in many of my previous posts.


As for claiming that a meme is false, that depends on the group. You have your own opinion on how DnD Must be run, others have their own opinion on how they prefer the groups they are in to run.

Its a meme. Meaning someone heard it somewhere, didn't take the time to pinpoint the real problem and decided to repeat what they heard. I don't care how others run their games. I only care that WotC told me I'd be able to run 5E using my play style and find it enjoyable when that's clearly not the case.


And your logical fallacy is that the mechanics must all be there and 'balanced' (by your arbitrary means of number crunching) for you to enjoy roleplaying.

Nope, not even close. In order for me to enjoy the game I need the game part to be balanced. If I want to enjoy role playing I have 3 other editions that I can do that in with broken mechanics. I don't need another one.

Lokiare
2014-07-28, 02:20 PM
Lokaire, most people just dont like 4th Edition, and if it had been a long term financially successful game we wouldn't be having these discussions right now. Instead it was a failure, because in many peoples minds "it wasn't D&D" (which is subjective of coarse, but somehow turned out to be pretty uniform).

Your opinion is based on faulty or non-existent evidence. 4E was no more a failure than 3E (which we know was canceled because of financial problems). Nothing uniform about it. 4E was top dog according to all available evidence until they released Essentials. After that Paizo and pathfinder rose to the top. Personally I think Paizo pulled ahead not because of 4E, but because of WotC's business practices, but there is no evidence either way on that one. We do know for a fact that it wasn't until after Essentials that Paizo pulled ahead though.


Then Paizo continued a game people were used to while also making all the right PR moves, WotC's own actions set up the perfect storm against them. Regarding "1E/2E players feeling 4E is more old school", lol, please go to the Dragonsfoot forums and post that little gem there, I look forward to the resulting humor.

I'll do that when you go post rap music on a skin head forum. What you are saying here proves nothing. People that hate all versions of D&D except 1E and 2E will continue to hate all version of D&D other than 1E and 2E. My assertion was that some 1E/2E players liked 4E more than they liked 3E.


The game isn't about strict, hard-nosed balance, its about "being D&D", and thank God for that. If that is what you desire then (non-4E) D&D is not the game for you.

"being D&D" means different things to different people. Anyone that started with 4E might tell you that D&D literally does mean balance and anything that isn't balanced is not D&D. If you ask an 0E player they might tell you that race is class and racial level limits is D&D and nothing else. For you clearly 4E isn't D&D, and I wouldn't care, except that WotC keeps repeating that 5E is for all of us, rather than being honest and saying its for a subset of players that enjoy a certain swingy, extremely deadly, play style with linear fighters and quadratic casters. They didn't though so we are stuck where we are.


But it doesn't matter what anyone on here says, you wont stop posting condescending replies and continuing to mire everyone in bitterness and negativity (come to think of it, I've never seen a post of yours on here that is overwhelmingly positive about anything).

Then you haven't seen me post about 4E or 13th Age. I'll tell you what, why don't you post an overwhelmingly positive review of an edition you find unplayable and we'll go from there.

hawklost
2014-07-28, 02:36 PM
.........
..... I only care that WotC told me I'd be able to run 5E using my play style and find it enjoyable when that's clearly not the case.


This is why people who play games are dumb while possibly being highly intelligent (And just so you know, I am not calling you stupid, just your attitude towards things here).

Your claim is that their marketing said you can play it your way. But when you see the mechanics you get upset because it does not fit your exacting way. If 5e was like 4e but only more streamlined, then I could say "This sucks, its terrible, it doesn't let me play my way!". Heck, I can say that about 5e too, it will not allow me to play a Paladin at this time, nor a Druid, Ranger. It doesn't have Gastalt classes or Psionics right now. All those things I have enjoyed playing in the past at one point or another. So by your logic, I should be screaming about how this game fails my over-inflated expectations. It also doesn't allow me to use space lasers and punish mages for using their power obviously (two different Tabletop games I like other than DnD). I should decry it because it does not do everything My Way.

Instead though, I look at it, compare it to the previous editions, look at those things I liked previously and those I did not. I compare it to other games out there for what I like about them and I do not. I then toss out stuff that is obviously foolish to expect in DnD (Space lasers and Magic system completely different than DnD style). I look at how they attempted to change the things I disliked. I look at things they removed that I actually enjoyed. If I consider the game worth my time to look into more, I then decide whether or not I should spend my time on the forums looking up about the game from other people's perspectives. I do not just go to forums to say how terrible a game is because it doesn't fit my opinion. I don't believe that I am special and that WoTC or any other company is going to take my complaints seriously, especially when most of the other on the forums would disagree with me on most of my claims. I never once went onto the 4e forums to say how crappy I think it is and how it was just a terrible game. Instead I chose to move on to different games, I stayed on 3.x for a while, played some PF since it was nice too, moved around to different games and finally, now that they came out with 5e, came back to WoTC hoping the game is worth my time.

I am also not so foolish as to think that everything that they said in marketing will be exactly as how I envision it (no matter how much i wish my vision was the way things came to be).




Nope, not even close. In order for me to enjoy the game I need the game part to be balanced. If I want to enjoy role playing I have 3 other editions that I can do that in with broken mechanics. I don't need another one.

You are again claiming this mythical 'balance' without giving any example. Does balance to you mean that every single turn the players do exactly the same amount of damage (or damage range for dice). Do the exact same attacks but with different flavor (my arrow vs his fire shot both do 1d8+x).

Here is a challenge for you

Name a Game that you find 'balanced'.
Then, name the major reasons it is 'balanced' in your mind.

This will allow people on these forums to see your concept of balance. Please note, I am sure many people will be glad to rip apart your argument of balance for that game with pulling numbers up and special circumstances for those numbers to shine.

obryn
2014-07-28, 02:48 PM
Lokaire, most people just dont like 4th Edition, and if it had been a long term financially successful game we wouldn't be having these discussions right now. Instead it was a failure, because in many peoples minds "it wasn't D&D" (which is subjective of coarse, but somehow turned out to be pretty uniform). Then Paizo continued a game people were used to while also making all the right PR moves, WotC's own actions set up the perfect storm against them. Regarding "1E/2E players feeling 4E is more old school", lol, please go to the Dragonsfoot forums and post that little gem there, I look forward to the resulting humor.
You know, the edition sniping on this forum has gotten more heated of late, and it's a bit disheartening.

Is it possible to have discussions about 5e without this nonsense? If you think you're being baited, ignore or report the baiter.

hawklost
2014-07-28, 02:53 PM
You know, the edition sniping on this forum has gotten more heated of late, and it's a bit disheartening.

Is it possible to have discussions about 5e without this nonsense? If you think you're being baited, ignore or report the baiter.

I think the best way to have discussions about 5e without edition sniping would be for everyone (including me) to stop referencing different editions for Any details. It would be best if we pretended it wasn't DnD at all and had some random other name, so that people couldn't throw their nostalgia at it and demand it work like the previous editions.

I never see as much sniping in other TableTop games as I do in DnD. Nor as many (It must work this way because it previously did) arguments.

archaeo
2014-07-28, 03:01 PM
You know, the edition sniping on this forum has gotten more heated of late, and it's a bit disheartening.

Is it possible to have discussions about 5e without this nonsense? If you think you're being baited, ignore or report the baiter.

Of late? I'm pretty sure this thread is indicative of the tone this board has taken since the GitP forums came back up. This is just the inevitable collision of quasi-religious beliefs regarding elf games, with a healthy dose of "everyone's a game designer" and "change is terrifying."

It's entirely possible to have discussions about 5e without this nonsense! You can find it on several other fora, elsewhere on the Internet; EN World seems to be having several polite discussions, while I know reddit is positively bullish about the new edition. Is it possible on this forum? With these participants? Welp, maybe. Of course, those other forums have either a) aggressive moderation or b) self-moderating votes, whereas this forum has locked a couple of especially egregious threads and otherwise seems content to let us argue the subject into the ground.

I don't know. I'm feeling perfectly optimistic about 5e; all the "fighter vs. wizard" or "dragon vs. peasants" memes haven't managed to dent that. But I have no optimism whatsoever about the collegiality of this forum.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-28, 03:05 PM
I would propose editing that slightly to Tradition > Simplicity > Verisimilitude > Balance
That's a good one. Compared to that, we would get:

3E: Tradition > Verisim > Balance > Simplicity,
PF: Tradition > Simplicity > Verisim > Balance,
4E: Balance > Simplicity > Tradition > Verisim.

Sartharina
2014-07-28, 03:05 PM
I think the best way to have discussions about 5e without edition sniping would be for everyone (including me) to stop referencing different editions for Any details. It would be best if we pretended it wasn't DnD at all and had some random other name, so that people couldn't throw their nostalgia at it and demand it work like the previous editions.

I never see as much sniping in other TableTop games as I do in DnD. Nor as many (It must work this way because it previously did) arguments.

Dungeons & Dragons is Dungeons & Dragons, no matter what edition number comes after the label. When I play D&D, I want to play D&D. And by D&D, I mean iterations on the same game that David Arneson and Gary Gygax got together and made in the 70s. Yes, the game will change - but it should have a vision of some sort, and subsequent editions should be reiteration and refinement of that vision.

hawklost
2014-07-28, 03:11 PM
Dungeons & Dragons is Dungeons & Dragons, no matter what edition number comes after the label. When I play D&D, I want to play D&D. And by D&D, I mean iterations on the same game that David Arneson and Gary Gygax got together and made in the 70s. Yes, the game will change - but it should have a vision of some sort, and subsequent editions should be reiteration and refinement of that vision.

Sadly, that is not the case anymore. I would have said that was fine when talking about 1e, 2e and 3.x. All of those feel like a refinement of the system. Not all the refinement was a good thing in my opinion, but it was still the same general system. 4e threw most of the system away in the name of balance, which is failed to achieve to its satisfaction. Now, if I were to pretend that 4e doesn't exist, I would say 5e was a good refinement of the previous editions (agian, not everything I see in 5e do I personally approve of the changes, but that is life).

Lord Raziere
2014-07-28, 03:14 PM
That's a good one. Compared to that, we would get:

3E: Tradition > Verisim > Balance > Simplicity,
PF: Tradition > Simplicity > Verisim > Balance,
4E: Balance > Simplicity > Tradition > Verisim.

Me, If I designed DnD would go with:

Balance > Verisim > Simplicity > Tradition.

which just shows how bad I'd do it I guess.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-28, 03:16 PM
When I play D&D, I want to play D&D. And by D&D, I mean iterations on the same game that David Arneson and Gary Gygax got together and made in the 70s.
It is interesting to note that this definition encompasses games like 13th Age, Pathfinder, and OSRIC.


Me, If I designed DnD would go with:

Balance > Verisim > Simplicity > Tradition.
I'd go with Simplicity > Verisim > Balance > Tradition, but I wouldn't call it D&D :smallwink:

More to the point, though, of the four of these, Tradition and Verisimilitude are the ones that actually sell games. Players love simplicity but are not necessarily willing to pay for that (considering many simple systems are just free), and recent developments make it clear (vocal minorities notwithstanding) that most players don't actually care about balance all that much, probably because it is the easiest for DMs and groups to compensate for.

Jigawatts
2014-07-28, 03:16 PM
Then you haven't seen me post about 4E or 13th Age. I'll tell you what, why don't you post an overwhelmingly positive review of an edition you find unplayable and we'll go from there.
That's the crux of the matter though. I don't like 4E (and have only given 13th Age a cursory glance), so I don't spend any of my time on those forums, whereas you spend a lot of time on here, seemingly just for the sake of bashing. If those are what you enjoy, great, I am happy that you have found games you like, but please stop bringing the rest of us down for games we like.

Lokiare
2014-07-28, 03:29 PM
Sadly, that is not the case anymore. I would have said that was fine when talking about 1e, 2e and 3.x. All of those feel like a refinement of the system. Not all the refinement was a good thing in my opinion, but it was still the same general system. 4e threw most of the system away in the name of balance, which is failed to achieve to its satisfaction. Now, if I were to pretend that 4e doesn't exist, I would say 5e was a good refinement of the previous editions (agian, not everything I see in 5e do I personally approve of the changes, but that is life).

Yes, and many players of 1E said the same of 2E, and players of 0E said the same of 1E and on and on and on...

I could say the same of 5e. 4E was a direct evolution of 3.5E and Tome of Battle. 5E jumped off the evolution track and went with the retroclone approach. Which would have been fine, but WotC keeps trying to tell me 5E is for me.


That's the crux of the matter though. I don't like 4E (and have only given 13th Age a cursory glance), so I don't spend any of my time on those forums, whereas you spend a lot of time on here, seemingly just for the sake of bashing. If those are what you enjoy, great, I am happy that you have found games you like, but please stop bringing the rest of us down for games we like.

Well. Talk to WotC. Tell them to clearly state that 5E is for fans of 0E, 1E, 2E, and 3E and that it is in no way meant to be liked by 4E fans. Once they make that announcement I will stop posting about 5E. Until that time I'm going to continue to voice my opinions of why 5E doesn't cater to my play style like WotC said it would.

da_chicken
2014-07-28, 03:29 PM
You know, the edition sniping on this forum has gotten more heated of late, and it's a bit disheartening.

Is it possible to have discussions about 5e without this nonsense? If you think you're being baited, ignore or report the baiter.

My ignore list has gotten much longer, but it's now at a point where most threads are readable.

Quite honestly, this board is just not moderated strongly enough for any other method to work. I gave up reporting people long ago because nothing ever happens.

Lokiare
2014-07-28, 03:32 PM
My ignore list has gotten much longer, but it's now at a point where most threads are readable.

Quite honestly, this board is just not moderated strongly enough for any other method to work. I gave up reporting people long ago because nothing ever happens.

Maybe that's because no one has actually broken the forum rules (and no, hurting someone's pride by providing facts is not against the rules).

hawklost
2014-07-28, 03:35 PM
My ignore list has gotten much longer, but it's now at a point where most threads are readable.

Quite honestly, this board is just not moderated strongly enough for any other method to work. I gave up reporting people long ago because nothing ever happens.

Wait, we have an ignore list? Where do I find this wonderful list?

Nevermind, I have found it. Thanks for the base info about an ignore list though.

da_chicken
2014-07-28, 03:43 PM
I'd go with Simplicity > Verisim > Balance > Tradition, but I wouldn't call it D&D :smallwink:

More to the point, though, of the four of these, Tradition and Verisimilitude are the ones that actually sell games. Players love simplicity but are not necessarily willing to pay for that (considering many simple systems are just free), and recent developments make it clear (vocal minorities notwithstanding) that most players don't actually care about balance all that much, probably because it is the easiest for DMs and groups to compensate for.

Very well put.

I think if WotC wanted to make the best game they would take 4e, rebuild it from the ground up with the knowledge of the original game's failings, and focus on what kind of audience would be attracted to the game (i.e., do you want mostly beginners or do you want mostly experts?).

I think if WotC wants to make the best Dungeons & Dragons, then they're probably on the right track with 5e. Many things have been said about the game, but I don't think anybody can criticize it for not being D&D. On the contrary, it's mostly been criticized for being too much D&D and not enough modern TTRPG.

obryn
2014-07-28, 03:50 PM
My ignore list has gotten much longer, but it's now at a point where most threads are readable.

Quite honestly, this board is just not moderated strongly enough for any other method to work. I gave up reporting people long ago because nothing ever happens.
Yeah, I'm sure part of that is because of board rules lawyering. It's the "I'm not touching you!" of forum conversation. :smallbiggrin: Ignore lists do the job; it's weird this is the first board I've wanted to use them on, though.

Past a certain point, I pretty much lose patience with (a) edition warring, even bashing the ones I don't like; (b) constant negativity; and (c) outright crazy. Also, (d) Quote Block Wars, but I'm more likely to just skim past those. (HINT: If you need more than three or four quote blocks to make your point, you're no longer in a real discussion.)

Jigawatts
2014-07-28, 03:50 PM
Well. Talk to WotC. Tell them to clearly state that 5E is for fans of 0E, 1E, 2E, and 3E and that it is in no way meant to be liked by 4E fans. Once they make that announcement I will stop posting about 5E. Until that time I'm going to continue to voice my opinions of why 5E doesn't cater to my play style like WotC said it would.
Or ya could, ya know, be the bigger person. ;)

Have you ever thought that maybe the 4E nods will come in the form of modules meant to set the game to that playstyle? Which is perfect, because you can buy it, and I can pass right over that one. Yay, happiness.

Live and let live, man.

obryn
2014-07-28, 03:59 PM
Or ya could, ya know, be the bigger person. ;)

Have you ever thought that maybe the 4E nods will come in the form of modules meant to set the game to that playstyle? Which is perfect, because you can buy it, and I can pass right over that one. Yay, happiness.

Live and let live, man.
I don't even know why it matters; 5e is going to be its own game. I don't need it to replicate 4e, because I already have 4e.

(Now, with that said, that's partly why I don't want to play 5e, but eh.)


Sadly, that is not the case anymore. I would have said that was fine when talking about 1e, 2e and 3.x. All of those feel like a refinement of the system. Not all the refinement was a good thing in my opinion, but it was still the same general system. 4e threw most of the system away in the name of balance, which is failed to achieve to its satisfaction. Now, if I were to pretend that 4e doesn't exist, I would say 5e was a good refinement of the previous editions (agian, not everything I see in 5e do I personally approve of the changes, but that is life).
*shrug*

For me, 4e finally fulfilled the promises D&D had been making to me for decades, ever since I first rolled up a 1st-level Magic-User and brought him through Keep on the Borderlands around 1982 or so. There were a bunch of breaks in tradition, but for me that made it more D&Dish, not less. Yeah, the mechanics changed up, but as far as I'm concerned it's an error to fetishize the specific mechanics through which ideas are implemented. So while I think there are definite breaks in continuity of rules, I think that more or less needed to happen for D&D to become a better D&D.

I was personally hoping 5e would get even more radical. :smallbiggrin:

omniknight
2014-07-28, 04:03 PM
Well. Talk to WotC. Tell them to clearly state that 5E is for fans of 0E, 1E, 2E, and 3E and that it is in no way meant to be liked by 4E fans. Once they make that announcement I will stop posting about 5E.

You want to put the onus on people who like 5e to pester WotC on behalf of those like who don't like it? And you expect people to take you seriously?



Until that time I'm going to continue to voice my opinions of why 5E doesn't cater to my play style like WotC said it would.

Why don't you go do that directly to WotC and leave this forum alone that was created for people who like 5e?

Fwiffo86
2014-07-28, 05:00 PM
Actually I said it was fine, but that if the DM did it over and over it would get old and become unbelievable. Its also not a fun thing to have everything you do countered. My example in my post was what happens when a fighter comes up against high AC creatures that have resistance or immunity to his attacks often? They would get just as frustrated.


Wait... huh? It's ok for the player to use the same tactic over and over and over, but if the DM does it, then it's unbelievable? Unless you think that they will evolve beyond that tactic as you say here...



I was thinking over the course of many session that the players strategies would evolve. I mean if I can think these things up in minutes, surely the average player could figure them out over the course of weeks or months.


And I'm still waiting for a response to my question to you....

How does playstyle choose if Fighter ability A is gained at 10th is equally useful or powerful to Cleric ability A also gained at 10th level?

Lord Raziere
2014-07-28, 05:05 PM
I'd go with Simplicity > Verisim > Balance > Tradition, but I wouldn't call it D&D :smallwink:

More to the point, though, of the four of these, Tradition and Verisimilitude are the ones that actually sell games. Players love simplicity but are not necessarily willing to pay for that (considering many simple systems are just free), and recent developments make it clear (vocal minorities notwithstanding) that most players don't actually care about balance all that much, probably because it is the easiest for DMs and groups to compensate for.

That makes me very sad and lonely for some reason. :smallfrown:

Tholomyes
2014-07-28, 06:07 PM
That makes me very sad and lonely for some reason. :smallfrown:Yeah, the big issue is, I have no love for any edition of D&D. 4e is probably, if I had to give an answer, my favorite of the editions, but even so, I can hardly actually enjoy playing it (DMing is a lot better, admittedly), so Traditionalism is a negative for me, largely. Verisimilitude would be great if they actually decided to realize that it doesn't mean "realism" or the like, but cleaving to the tropes of fantasy fiction (which D&D actually doesn't do that much; it cleaves to the tropes of D&D, which is just Traditionalism). I like simplicity, when it's elegant, but if they try to cleave too close to Tradition or Verisimilitude it rarely has that elegance. and lastly, balance is great, and probably the top of the 4 for me, but you can't build a system just off of balance. As such, there isn't much that D&D can do to try to grab me, without being "Not D&D" even more so than the claims laid on 4e. But, of course, due to D&D's dominance, there aren't too many good fantasy RPGs, that aren't in one way or another, responses to D&D, rather than their own thing.

obryn
2014-07-28, 06:30 PM
That makes me very sad and lonely for some reason. :smallfrown:
It's nerd tribalism and deep seated edition war nonsense. It's pretty crappy to say, "you're not really playing D&D" to someone who's playing D&D. Like it or not D&D is a "big tent" kind of game.

MeeposFire
2014-07-28, 06:33 PM
Dnd wasc never about balance it was about archtypes. You are living the tropes of the game and the historical heratige that it comes with.

If your asking me how a muggle can be balanced with someone who can summon demons ... you can't. Besides plot armor.

The casters are meant too enhance others not become Solo god kings.

It is difficult to balance said things however there is a difference in literature and in various types of D&D.

For instance while people my look at AD&D and compare them to 3e and think they look really similar and therefor think they are very similar in balance. That is not actually the case. WHile they look spuerficially similar if you delve into the dirty details AD&D magic casters are much more limited than 3e casters. One part that was already mentioned was the drawbacks on spells but there are other things that hut spell casters in AD&D. Some quick things include easier to disrupt (only have to hit not even damage and it was automatic), warrior defenses were better, casting tended to be slower than weapons at higher levels, spellcaster endurance was much less in HP/spells per day, items were harder to acquire/harder to make, and more.

4e did do it differently as well. While you could summon a demon the demon's abilities were appropriate for a summon of your level rather than a stock version of a similar creature. In amny cases it was assumed you were summoning an aspect though instead of the full creature and thus we see how magic is limited in power even if not in scope.

In literature we also find that magic is often limited in some way. Sometimes it was the types of magic (dragonage you cannot teleport), magic could have huge detrimental effects on your body or sanity (think Lovecraft or the mage game where the more something is outside reality the more it hurts you), it may not do much compared to D&D (Shanara series has magic but it is far more limited in D&D from what I have seen), or more.

Magic may be hard to balance but 3e magic is on the far end of the scale where there are few limits imposed on magic and it has few draw backs on top of that. That can be fun for some but it is key to understand that in a discussion about magic 3e is on the far end and not the middle.

Alabenson
2014-07-28, 06:46 PM
I could say the same of 5e. 4E was a direct evolution of 3.5E and Tome of Battle. 5E jumped off the evolution track and went with the retroclone approach. Which would have been fine, but WotC keeps trying to tell me 5E is for me.

Well. Talk to WotC. Tell them to clearly state that 5E is for fans of 0E, 1E, 2E, and 3E and that it is in no way meant to be liked by 4E fans. Once they make that announcement I will stop posting about 5E. Until that time I'm going to continue to voice my opinions of why 5E doesn't cater to my play style like WotC said it would.

Would you prefer, instead of telling you 5e was for you, that WotC called 4e garbage, the powers system stupid, and that you were objectively wrong for preferring 4e's style of play? Because that was essentially how 4e was marketed to fans of 3.5e when it was released.

Regardless of what style you personally prefer, the fact remains that WotC's priority right now is recapturing the customers it lost who either switched to Pathfinder or stuck with 3.5e. That doesn't mean they don't want you to move from 4e to 5e, so they're not going to tell you "no, 5e is not for you", but people who preferred 4e aren't who they are focusing on at the moment.

Now, I understand that this sucks from you're point of view, and I sympathize because I was in the same situation when 4e was released. Therefore, I will paraphrase some advice I read back then;

WotC isn't going to send ninjas out into the night to steal all of your 4e books. If you really hate 5e, just ignore WotC altogether and continue playing 4e.

Knaight
2014-07-28, 07:17 PM
It's nerd tribalism and deep seated edition war nonsense. It's pretty crappy to say, "you're not really playing D&D" to someone who's playing D&D. Like it or not D&D is a "big tent" kind of game.

By the same token, being told you are playing D&D when you're playing a non-D&D game is also frustrating. I would consider any definition of D&D that excludes any of the games actually called D&D wrong. I'd also consider the definition of D&D that encompasses any RPG (generally used by people who don't play RPGs) wrong, and honestly a lot more irritating.

There also are some grey areas. Is Pathfinder D&D? OSIRIC? 13th Age? I'd call the first two D&D, but I could easily see considering any combination of these D&D, including none and all. It's not a clean-cut division, whereas basically nobody who has any idea of what Shadowrun is is going to be calling it D&D.

Plus, people are going to have a distinct D&D feel, or several distinct D&D feels, and it's very possible for games which are obviously D&D to not feel like D&D in a particular way. 4e doesn't feel like D&D to me in a number of ways - that's not a value judgement, and reflects more the particular things that seem D&Dish to me than anything else. It also doesn't mean much as for whether I like the game - Fudge doesn't feel like D&D at all to me, it's still my favorite RPG.

obryn
2014-07-28, 07:28 PM
There also are some grey areas. Is Pathfinder D&D? OSIRIC? 13th Age? I'd call the first two D&D, but I could easily see considering any combination of these D&D, including none and all. It's not a clean-cut division, whereas basically nobody who has any idea of what Shadowrun is is going to be calling it D&D.
I'd stick with the courteous option of just deferring to whatever they say they're doing, rather than get pedantic over the specific game or brand. :smallsmile: I don't need to categorize other peoples' hobbies. If one group says they're "playing D&D" and they all use Pathfinder books at the table, and another group says they're "playing D&D" with Dungeon World playbooks, so be it. I think people can generally be trusted to self-categorize, and it leads to fewer dumb tribalism nerdfights that way.

Knaight
2014-07-28, 08:11 PM
I'd stick with the courteous option of just deferring to whatever they say they're doing, rather than get pedantic over the specific game or brand. :smallsmile: I don't need to categorize other peoples' hobbies. If one group says they're "playing D&D" and they all use Pathfinder books at the table, and another group says they're "playing D&D" with Dungeon World playbooks, so be it. I think people can generally be trusted to self-categorize, and it leads to fewer dumb tribalism nerdfights that way.

That's generally my approach as well. Still, occasionally it's useful to have some sort of usable definition outside of conversations of the "are you playing the game you say you're playing" variety*, and D&D does have grey areas because of all the adaptations, retroclones, fantasy heartbreakers, etc.

*Which are totally pointless.

SiuiS
2014-07-28, 10:51 PM
Before we go on I have a thing (http://forum.chocolatepi.net/showthread.php?tid=197) or two to share (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/05/19/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty/).

Interesting.

I find this to be misleading. It's not as accurate as it says it is. "No one ever just accepts new knowledge and moves on, that's why it's an experience"? I've seen that fairly often. It's all about the people you know.

If someone's rules they chose to adopt involve not rationalizing and they ten rationalize themselves into being logical so logic doesn't cause an identity crisis, are they logical? Rationalizing? Both? Neither?

Not a very useful piece of data for this discussion, I feel.


so you solve the problem of wizards casting spells by making sure that they might as well not be wizards at all, and just be scholars uselessly standing around. how interesting.

I know you're beig sarcastic, but I agree; a wizard should not be defined by what their magic does in fights. I would much prefer a system that uses ritual components for magic and the difference between casters is entirely skill and combat power based. I think I've discussed this before.


@ Siuis:
so your all-problem solving was "justified" by a jerk DM?

No, my ability to solve problems was not a bad thing because it didn't come up; everyone in the game was able to solve problems. But not everyone was able to solve all problems. Not even the wizard class. But when something came up that no one else could handle, I could enhance another player enough to get the job done.


In a balanced system solving everyone elses problems would not be needed

No, this is a thing about groups. In a good group, solving everyone else's problems shouldn't happen (in theory; I don't agree). A balanced system would allow any character to solve any problem, by definition. Well, colloquial definition.



anyone who thinks that a system will solve bad DMing is forgetting that a DM can and will make their own rules anyways. your "solution" is like trying to solve the problem of someone who hacked a videogame by playing as hard as you can- it doesn't matter how hard you play it or whether you took all the right customization options, the hacker has hacked the game- they have already gone beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct for said game, and no matter you do, you won't win, the only way to get rid of the hacking jerk is to alert the people outside the videogame who can get rid of them. your story about how you helped your group is an exercise in futility.

I've done that actually. Got a lot lip from a rocket glitched in Me 3 multiplayer so I set out to make him look like a chump. Was fun.

This missed the point though. You are assuming the wizard is breaking the game. The point is that just because you can doesn't mean you will. A peasant in exalted can end a solar – but that doesn't mean every peasant has a deathmaul and training for it.



Actually WotC's plan was to support all major play styles of previous editions. Let me check. Yep, 4E was a previous edition to 5E, therefore 5E is supposed to include us 4E players in its play style list.


Is that still a goal? It was at one point but goals change.


How does play style dictate if Fighter ability X gained at 10th level is of equivalent usefulness and power level to Cleric ability X gained at 10th level? Did we use the same math to build both abilities? Will this ability outshine/be used more than ability X gained at 10th level by the Rogue?

If te game goal is to create interpersonal drama, then one player being able to kill enemies where others can't isn't an issue. It may even be a feature. If the goal is to murder monsters in a cave, the ability to socialize with monarchs doesn't overpower anything. Etc.


Dnd wasc never about balance it was about archtypes. You are living the tropes of the game and the historical heratige that it comes with.

If your asking me how a muggle can be balanced with someone who can summon demons ... you can't. Besides plot armor.

This was once true, but not anymore. The games, and the people who design a Nd play then, have grown.


I think the best way to have discussions about 5e without edition sniping would be for everyone (including me) to stop referencing different editions for Any details. It would be best if we pretended it wasn't DnD at all and had some random other name, so that people couldn't throw their nostalgia at it and demand it work like the previous editions.

I never see as much sniping in other TableTop games as I do in DnD. Nor as many (It must work this way because it previously did) arguments.

Yup.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-29, 12:25 AM
I know you're beig sarcastic, but I agree; a wizard should not be defined by what their magic does in fights. I would much prefer a system that uses ritual components for magic and the difference between casters is entirely skill and combat power based. I think I've discussed this before.

No, my ability to solve problems was not a bad thing because it didn't come up; everyone in the game was able to solve problems. But not everyone was able to solve all problems. Not even the wizard class. But when something came up that no one else could handle, I could enhance another player enough to get the job done.

No, this is a thing about groups. In a good group, solving everyone else's problems shouldn't happen (in theory; I don't agree). A balanced system would allow any character to solve any problem, by definition. Well, colloquial definition.

I've done that actually. Got a lot lip from a rocket glitched in Me 3 multiplayer so I set out to make him look like a chump. Was fun.

This missed the point though. You are assuming the wizard is breaking the game. The point is that just because you can doesn't mean you will. A peasant in exalted can end a solar – but that doesn't mean every peasant has a deathmaul and training for it.


1. then why are they a wizard? all their capabilities being defined by magic is literally their entire concept. you pretty much saying that wizards should not really be wizards at all.

2.....kay

3. ok

4. which is risky, because if you had failed to do so, you would be the chump instead, you should've just reported him

5. No. when I refer to the hacker- I mean the DM. when I talk of the person who uses the rules to try and fight back to their maximum potential- that is the wizard. for no matter how powerful, the wizard is only Jaffar after his second wish- the most powerful sorcerer in the world, but the Genie will always have greater power than him. the only way Jaffar can attain his power and defeat such a being is become a genie himself. Thus does the wizard's power can only ever be as powerful the DM says it is, like a hacker modifying the games code to adjust the gamers weaponry, and thus can he only defeat the DM by becoming the DM. By leaving the game of such a jerk DM, making his own and being DM so that he may DM fairly. But like becoming a genie, being DM has phenomenal cosmic power- but itty bitty living space. they have responsibilities and are bound by what the players wish of them. it does not matter how much the wizard breaks the game. they are still within it, and the outside force of the DM will always rule supreme in their judgement unless you leave said game.

Knaight
2014-07-29, 02:19 AM
1. then why are they a wizard? all their capabilities being defined by magic is literally their entire concept. you pretty much saying that wizards should not really be wizards at all.

That would be because they use magic. Their concept is not someone where every capability is defined by magic, merely someone who uses magic sufficiently heavily. Someone who only performs rituals is still a wizard, though D&D doesn't favor that type.

Tholomyes
2014-07-29, 03:02 PM
That would be because they use magic. Their concept is not someone where every capability is defined by magic, merely someone who uses magic sufficiently heavily. Someone who only performs rituals is still a wizard, though D&D doesn't favor that type.Supposedly there's a feat which allows anyone to pick up ritual casting, so, as such, a Wizard has to be defined, if not in every capability, at least in most, so as to significantly distinguish them.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-29, 03:51 PM
That makes me very sad and lonely for some reason. :smallfrown:

Just be happy that you live in the age of the internet, where many competent game designers can get their books sold via Kickstarter. If you think any edition of D&D is too traditionalistic, you could probably find something else that you like better.

Tholomyes
2014-07-29, 04:32 PM
Just be happy that you live in the age of the internet, where many competent game designers can get their books sold via Kickstarter. If you think any edition of D&D is too traditionalistic, you could probably find something else that you like better.A large problem, though, comes down to D&D's dominance. Nearly every fantasy RPG is a response, in one way or another, to D&D, be it Pathfinder, or TSR-era Retroclones, or the 13th age, a self described "love letter" to D&D. Those that are their own things are usually significantly niche (though, due to the OGL, not all niche games are even their own thing, anyway), leaving not a lot that can replace D&D.

Knaight
2014-07-29, 05:01 PM
A large problem, though, comes down to D&D's dominance. Nearly every fantasy RPG is a response, in one way or another, to D&D, be it Pathfinder, or TSR-era Retroclones, or the 13th age, a self described "love letter" to D&D. Those that are their own things are usually significantly niche (though, due to the OGL, not all niche games are even their own thing, anyway), leaving not a lot that can replace D&D.

It's hardly nearly every fantasy RPG. Those three are, as are a number of others (e.g. Torchbearer). Burning Wheel, Legend of the Five Rings, Qin: The Warring States, GURPS Fantasy, REIGN, Legends of Anglerre, Deyrini Realms, Chronica Feudalis, Ars Magica, all of those are their own things.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-29, 05:12 PM
You are correct, but it is possible none of them would exist if not for D&D

Tholomyes
2014-07-29, 05:24 PM
It's hardly nearly every fantasy RPG. Those three are, as are a number of others (e.g. Torchbearer). Burning Wheel, Legend of the Five Rings, Qin: The Warring States, GURPS Fantasy, REIGN, Legends of Anglerre, Deyrini Realms, Chronica Feudalis, Ars Magica, all of those are their own things.A bit of an exaggeration, to be sure, but for a generic fantasy RPG, not all of those, I would argue, qualify. Like it or not, what we refer to as generic fantasy is very western-centric, and while eastern influence is there, in the form of the monk, and occasionally other aspects, it is more the exception to the rule, so L5R and Qin, while probably good games, don't really fit the same thematic area as D&D. Admittedly, I probably did mentally gloss over some of the systems, due to personal dislike (Burning Wheel, GURPS and Ars Magica, notably), but that still adds to my point, in that even finding systems which are different than D&D doesn't mean they'll solve the problems D&D has, or not have their own problems which could be equally bad or even worse.

SiuiS
2014-07-29, 11:08 PM
1. then why are they a wizard? all their capabilities being defined by magic is literally their entire concept. you pretty much saying that wizards should not really be wizards at all.

Because magic isn't "I make explosions". That's called demolitions. Magic isn't "I control your turn". That's called puppeteering. Magic is knowing things. Magic is about understanding the rules that no one else even knows exist, and beig able to exploit them. Magic is being able to perform ritual magic, bein g able to successfully negotiate with demons and angles and Djin, magic is ignoring the mundane fruits and searching for deeper truth and power.

Standard action distance effects aren't what define magic. The fantastic element, the fantastic rule engagement is what magic is. If the class deals in rituals and superstition. You're a wizard because you engage with these things, not because you get spell levels or books or anything.



4. which is risky, because if you had failed to do so, you would be the chump instead, you should've just reported him

I did. But chasing that fight was enjoyable.


5. No. when I refer to the hacker- I mean the DM. when I talk of the person who uses the rules to try and fight back to their maximum potential- that is the wizard. for no matter how powerful, the wizard is only Jaffar after his second wish- the most powerful sorcerer in the world, but the Genie will always have greater power than him. the only way Jaffar can attain his power and defeat such a being is become a genie himself. Thus does the wizard's power can only ever be as powerful the DM says it is, like a hacker modifying the games code to adjust the gamers weaponry, and thus can he only defeat the DM by becoming the DM. By leaving the game of such a jerk DM, making his own and being DM so that he may DM fairly. But like becoming a genie, being DM has phenomenal cosmic power- but itty bitty living space. they have responsibilities and are bound by what the players wish of them. it does not matter how much the wizard breaks the game. they are still within it, and the outside force of the DM will always rule supreme in their judgement unless you leave said game.

The genie is bound by rules. The genie can't make someone fall in love, the genie can't kill, the genie is bound to a lamp and a master. So is the DM. The DM has rules they abide by. Working those can get stuff done. I don't know why that matters though – this isn't really about DMs. This isn't a discussion about getting around bad storytellers. That was a distraction. This discussion is about how "bad" being broken something is. About whether a caster in the D&D sense is definitely a balance issue that is always 100% bad. My stance is that people assume the symptoms are the disease. They aren't. Wizards being breakable doesn't mean they're broken. It means they can be broken. And that's a player thing.


Just be happy that you live in the age of the internet, where many competent game designers can get their books sold via Kickstarter. If you think any edition of D&D is too traditionalistic, you could probably find something else that you like better.

True dat.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-30, 12:10 AM
Because magic isn't "I make explosions". That's called demolitions. Magic isn't "I control your turn". That's called puppeteering. Magic is knowing things. Magic is about understanding the rules that no one else even knows exist, and beig able to exploit them. Magic is being able to perform ritual magic, bein g able to successfully negotiate with demons and angles and Djin, magic is ignoring the mundane fruits and searching for deeper truth and power.

Standard action distance effects aren't what define magic. The fantastic element, the fantastic rule engagement is what magic is. If the class deals in rituals and superstition. You're a wizard because you engage with these things, not because you get spell levels or books or anything.



The genie is bound by rules. The genie can't make someone fall in love, the genie can't kill, the genie is bound to a lamp and a master. So is the DM. The DM has rules they abide by. Working those can get stuff done. I don't know why that matters though – this isn't really about DMs. This isn't a discussion about getting around bad storytellers. That was a distraction. This discussion is about how "bad" being broken something is. About whether a caster in the D&D sense is definitely a balance issue that is always 100% bad. My stance is that people assume the symptoms are the disease. They aren't. Wizards being breakable doesn't mean they're broken. It means they can be broken. And that's a player thing.


1. You mean being a scholar? You mean being a lawyer? You mean being a machine operator, being able to be a successful diplomat? You mean being a philosopher?

2. Its not superstition if its true, or belief if its fact.

3. And if wizards weren't breakable, they would not get broken and it wouldn't BE a player thing now would it? we wouldn't have to trust an honor system. wouldn't have to constantly worry if the wizard has finally become broken or not, constantly worry about whether or not if they have finally become too powerful. I can't be SURE if they have broken it yet. like this, I cannot be sure, I cannot clearly tell. If wizards were more balanced, then I wouldn't have to worry about whether or not they're already broken or not, now would I? I would be able to clearly tell and do something about it. but no, I have to worry about whether the person is 1:being a gamebreaking jerk or 2: just doing his playstyle or 3: doing his playstyle, which is being a gamebreaking jerk. and its really hard to tell between the three, when DnD culture seems to idolize and glamorize the optimizer for breaking the system and completely changing the way the game is played.

lets ignore the roleplaying aspect entirely for a moment. when I play something in a team effort, I don't want to solve everything. I want to solve the thing I'm meant to solve. solving other things is the other guys job, not mine. I don't heal. I don't sneak around. I don't wear armor and wield a sword, I cast fireball. optimizing to solve everyones elses problem is saying "I don't trust you to do your job yourself" and therefore I don't optimize. optimizing and solving everything is too easy for my tastes, its making things too easy, or its upping the difficulty to a level I don't want, to a level up of obsessive tactical minutiae I don't want to deal with. I HATE having an automatic solution for every situation, it makes me feel like nothing is challenging for me. what I want is solutions for the things I specialize in, other things is for other people in the group to figure out. because when I start going around solving everybody's problems for them when they are capable of doing it themselves, thats not being helpful, thats being patronizing and smothering. the wizard class is simply TOO flexible and without limit for me to like solving any problem with it, because the solutions are too obvious, because even if the problem of "you don't have that spell" comes up, the most logical solution is to, guess what, learn it! because even if in the situation I don't use that solution, I will go and learn that solution next time! and from there its all too easy to devise a default loud out of spells to get out of any situation you can't already solve, with all your spellbooks and then prepare the spells needed to come back and solve it tomorrow, which is not a challenge for me. thats just an inconvenience, especially when there is four allies who can solve it for me.

so yes, it is bad, because it promotes a paranoid mindset of applying spell A to slot B even if you don't break the game with it. it makes me feel too much like one of those doomsday preparation people. I don't want to play the wizard to be Mr. "I AM GOING TO DIE IF I DON'T GRAB EVERYTHING USEFUL IN ANY POSSIBLE SITUATION AAAAAAAAAAAAH." it makes me feel like the DM has it out for me, even if they don't.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-30, 08:10 AM
"you don't have that spell" comes up, the most logical solution is to, guess what, learn it! because even if in the situation I don't use that solution, I will go and learn that solution next time! and from there its all too easy to devise a default loud out of spells to get out of any situation you can't already solve, with all your spellbooks and then prepare the spells needed to come back and solve it tomorrow, which is not a challenge for me. thats just an inconvenience, especially when there is four allies who can solve it for me.


How do you respond to not being able to just learn a new spell? I have seen no indication that a wizard gains spells any quicker than 2 per level. No indication that you can just copy spells to your book. It is possible that you don't get to do that any more. How does that affect your answer?

Lokiare
2014-07-30, 08:23 AM
1. You mean being a scholar? You mean being a lawyer? You mean being a machine operator, being able to be a successful diplomat? You mean being a philosopher?

2. Its not superstition if its true, or belief if its fact.

3. And if wizards weren't breakable, they would not get broken and it wouldn't BE a player thing now would it? we wouldn't have to trust an honor system. wouldn't have to constantly worry if the wizard has finally become broken or not, constantly worry about whether or not if they have finally become too powerful. I can't be SURE if they have broken it yet. like this, I cannot be sure, I cannot clearly tell. If wizards were more balanced, then I wouldn't have to worry about whether or not they're already broken or not, now would I? I would be able to clearly tell and do something about it. but no, I have to worry about whether the person is 1:being a gamebreaking jerk or 2: just doing his playstyle or 3: doing his playstyle, which is being a gamebreaking jerk. and its really hard to tell between the three, when DnD culture seems to idolize and glamorize the optimizer for breaking the system and completely changing the way the game is played.

lets ignore the roleplaying aspect entirely for a moment. when I play something in a team effort, I don't want to solve everything. I want to solve the thing I'm meant to solve. solving other things is the other guys job, not mine. I don't heal. I don't sneak around. I don't wear armor and wield a sword, I cast fireball. optimizing to solve everyones elses problem is saying "I don't trust you to do your job yourself" and therefore I don't optimize. optimizing and solving everything is too easy for my tastes, its making things too easy, or its upping the difficulty to a level I don't want, to a level up of obsessive tactical minutiae I don't want to deal with. I HATE having an automatic solution for every situation, it makes me feel like nothing is challenging for me. what I want is solutions for the things I specialize in, other things is for other people in the group to figure out. because when I start going around solving everybody's problems for them when they are capable of doing it themselves, thats not being helpful, thats being patronizing and smothering. the wizard class is simply TOO flexible and without limit for me to like solving any problem with it, because the solutions are too obvious, because even if the problem of "you don't have that spell" comes up, the most logical solution is to, guess what, learn it! because even if in the situation I don't use that solution, I will go and learn that solution next time! and from there its all too easy to devise a default loud out of spells to get out of any situation you can't already solve, with all your spellbooks and then prepare the spells needed to come back and solve it tomorrow, which is not a challenge for me. thats just an inconvenience, especially when there is four allies who can solve it for me.

so yes, it is bad, because it promotes a paranoid mindset of applying spell A to slot B even if you don't break the game with it. it makes me feel too much like one of those doomsday preparation people. I don't want to play the wizard to be Mr. "I AM GOING TO DIE IF I DON'T GRAB EVERYTHING USEFUL IN ANY POSSIBLE SITUATION AAAAAAAAAAAAH." it makes me feel like the DM has it out for me, even if they don't.

I completely agree with most of this. The only thing that I would add is that in 4E you could still optimize like crazy but when you did, you only got 10%-20% better than the average and if you tried to make the worst possible character (I've done it)* you were only 10%-20% worse than the average. The most gap you could get was about 40% if everyone at the table tried to create said gap. Now many of you hated 4E, but did you hate that you couldn't break the game? If not, then why can't an edition of D&D be made that is structurally like 1E, 2E, or 3E that doesn't allow players to accidentally break the game (or even on purpose)? The answer is that it could but WotC decided not to.

Also just making many of these "I win" buttons require other players to work would be a big step. Make buff spells only target allies that aren't concentrating (which takes out the cleric, cleric, wizard, wizard party combos). Make save or die and save or suck spells work better if the target is at half hp or quarter hp or under some threshold of hp. The higher their hp the more difficult they should be to take down with a save or die spell. Make spells that replace other classes features much worse, last resort kind of spells. Knock is a good example. Instead of making noise (which can be countered by casting silence first) make the caster make a pick locks skill check using their dex (which can be low) with no proficiency bonus. The spell would allow them to have the tools bonus for creating magical controlled tools or whatever. If it were like that would you waste a spell slot on it unless you didn't have any other choice? Spider Climb could just allow full movement while climbing but still require climb checks so no self respecting wizard would use it on themselves (but a Wizard/Rogue might).

There are plenty of things that could have been done to fix the problems but Mearls and Co just didn't do them.

*I made a Cleric that tried to miss every time because they could do some minor healing if they missed and I picked all kinds of powers that had miss effects.

Lokiare
2014-07-30, 08:28 AM
How do you respond to not being able to just learn a new spell? I have seen no indication that a wizard gains spells any quicker than 2 per level. No indication that you can just copy spells to your book. It is possible that you don't get to do that any more. How does that affect your answer?

You really should take the time to read the Basic PDF. Page 31 and 32. Read the funny colored part that they call a sidebar (but is in fact the same size as a normal column of text).

Friv
2014-07-30, 08:31 AM
How do you respond to not being able to just learn a new spell? I have seen no indication that a wizard gains spells any quicker than 2 per level. No indication that you can just copy spells to your book. It is possible that you don't get to do that any more. How does that affect your answer?

Basic rules, page 32.


When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.
Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.

*edit* Ninja'd by Lokiare.

Lokiare
2014-07-30, 08:33 AM
Basic rules, page 32.



*edit* Ninja'd by Lokiare.

I didn't copy the text because I'm trying to get them to read the PDF.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-30, 08:37 AM
You really should take the time to read the Basic PDF. Page 31 and 32. Read the funny colored part that they call a sidebar (but is in fact the same size as a normal column of text).

And you should understand that not everyone has complete access to this information at all times. Some of us have jobs, and families which cut into our research time. So pardon me for not having the time to actually read every single word of the documents I have. I ask, because I was curious and don't have my documents with me.

I would appreciate you taking your condescending attitude elsewhere.

Jeraa
2014-07-30, 08:38 AM
You really should take the time to read the Basic PDF. Page 31 and 32. Read the funny colored part that they call a sidebar (but is in fact the same size as a normal column of text).

Specifically, this:


Copying a Spell into the Book. When you find a wizard spell of 1st level or higher, you can add it to your spellbook if it is of a level for which you have spell slots and if you can spare the time to decipher and copy it.

Copying a spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.

For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells.

Also, each wizard archetype reduces the time and cost needed for their specific school of spells. For example, the School of Evocation tradition reduces the time and money needed to add new Evocation spells to his spellbook.

Doug Lampert
2014-07-30, 09:50 AM
And you should understand that not everyone has complete access to this information at all times. Some of us have jobs, and families which cut into our research time. So pardon me for not having the time to actually read every single word of the documents I have. I ask, because I was curious and don't have my documents with me.

I would appreciate you taking your condescending attitude elsewhere.

You did not ask if you could add spells to your spellbook! You asked how he'd respond to not being able to add any more spells to your spellbook and claim to have not seen any rule allowing it.

You treat the lack of a rule in the PDF as a fact and do not ask about it at all, your question is how he'll respond if this (incorrect) factual claim remains true in the full game.

You said:

How do you respond to not being able to just learn a new spell? I have seen no indication that a wizard gains spells any quicker than 2 per level. No indication that you can just copy spells to your book. It is possible that you don't get to do that any more. How does that affect your answer?

Had you asked "Can you add spells to your spellbook", or "What makes you think you can add spells to your spellbook" or "What rule allows you to add spells to your spellbook" then you'd be justified in saying that they shouldn't be condescending.

The rule is referenced multiple times in the PDF, it's in the section on adding spells to your spellbook, it's in the Evoker features (which make it cheaper as the level 2 path feature), it has a sidebar.

And if you have a computer with an internet connection available, a browser, and a PDF reader, then you have a copy of the PDF available. I'm away from my books doesn't carry much weight yet with 5e.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-30, 10:07 AM
You did not ask if you could add spells to your spellbook! You asked how he'd respond to not being able to add any more spells to your spellbook and claim to have not seen any rule allowing it.

You treat the lack of a rule in the PDF as a fact and do not ask about it at all, your question is how he'll respond if this (incorrect) factual claim remains true in the full game.

You said:


Had you asked "Can you add spells to your spellbook", or "What makes you think you can add spells to your spellbook" or "What rule allows you to add spells to your spellbook" then you'd be justified in saying that they shouldn't be condescending.

The rule is referenced multiple times in the PDF, it's in the section on adding spells to your spellbook, it's in the Evoker features (which make it cheaper as the level 2 path feature), it has a sidebar.

And if you have a computer with an internet connection available, a browser, and a PDF reader, then you have a copy of the PDF available. I'm away from my books doesn't carry much weight yet with 5e.

I was addressing Loki's consistent demeaning attitude to me regarding not having equivalent knowledge. This has happened over multiple posts and threads. Your reaction to my post is understandable, as I can see where you were lacking important knowledge regarding Loki and I's previous discussions.

As far as the access assumption: Again... I am at work. I have access to the internet. I do NOT have access much less permission to download pdfs off of sites not recognized as safe by my office and network administrators. Thus, I do not have access to the pdf while I am at work. You are correct, I did in fact ask what Raz's response would be to not being able to just copy spells into his spell book, as I did not recall reading anything about that in the short amount of time I have had to research the subject. I have other responsibilities that take precedent (work, family, toddler). The presumption that all posters have equivalent knowledge, and then jumping down their throats for proving they do not have the same knowledge base is extremely rude.

I do not treat lack of a rule that I have read as "fact". I was posing a theoretical question. I have done so on several occasions. If you had read my post in this way, I attribute that to poor word choice on my part and nothing more.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-30, 10:49 AM
In response to Fwiffo:

I would respond, if that was true, like this: I already prefer sorcerers. It pleases me that WotC is at least not throwing all balance from 4e, and that we can finally have a wizard that has to actually limit themselves and focus on area of specialization rather than turning themselves paranoid all problem solvers.

but since that is not true, I'll just pity the fool who thinks he can discuss 5e balance without actually looking at 5e and then say he doesn't have the time it takes to make a short download of a free pdf and the one minute it took for me to look up that fact about the 5e wizard myself. /Mr. T

Lokiare
2014-07-30, 11:12 AM
I was addressing Loki's consistent demeaning attitude to me regarding not having equivalent knowledge. This has happened over multiple posts and threads. Your reaction to my post is understandable, as I can see where you were lacking important knowledge regarding Loki and I's previous discussions.

As far as the access assumption: Again... I am at work. I have access to the internet. I do NOT have access much less permission to download pdfs off of sites not recognized as safe by my office and network administrators. Thus, I do not have access to the pdf while I am at work. You are correct, I did in fact ask what Raz's response would be to not being able to just copy spells into his spell book, as I did not recall reading anything about that in the short amount of time I have had to research the subject. I have other responsibilities that take precedent (work, family, toddler). The presumption that all posters have equivalent knowledge, and then jumping down their throats for proving they do not have the same knowledge base is extremely rude.

I do not treat lack of a rule that I have read as "fact". I was posing a theoretical question. I have done so on several occasions. If you had read my post in this way, I attribute that to poor word choice on my part and nothing more.

If it was just that you didn't understand it or weren't smart enough to get it, I would be much more understanding. It isn't though. Multiple times you have come here and posted factually inaccurate things because you don't want to open up the PDF and read it. That is the definition of willful ignorance.

It has nothing to do with if you have system mastery or the same knowledge. Its whether you choose to put out stuff that is factually incorrect, knowing its incorrect (or has the possibility of being incorrect) rather than taking a few minutes to read a free PDF that is available to everyone.

If you are at work, print the thing out or put it on your mobile device (phone, tablet, laptop, whatever) and during your breaks or whenever you are posting on this forum read the relevant parts before posting.

The first time you pulled this I was polite and said you should probably download the free PDF and read it. The second time I did the same. I think the third time I also did the same. However my patience is running out. I'm going to start calling you out on it.

omniknight
2014-07-30, 01:06 PM
lets ignore the roleplaying aspect entirely for a moment. when I play something in a team effort, I don't want to solve everything. I want to solve the thing I'm meant to solve. solving other things is the other guys job, not mine. I don't heal. I don't sneak around. I don't wear armor and wield a sword, I cast fireball. optimizing to solve everyones elses problem is saying "I don't trust you to do your job yourself" and therefore I don't optimize.

Not much in your long rambling post is worth responding to, but I do want to highlight and respond to this.

My desire to optimize my PCs does not come from an inherent lack of trust for my allies to do their jobs. It comes from the desire to create the "most effective" PC per the RAW that I can, based on what I personally define as "effective." In the case of a Wizard, I believe more versatility (IC & OOC options) makes for a better overall spellcaster so I focus on maximizing that in various ways. Others might think the most effective Wizard is one that does the most DPR, or whatever.

Also, since when is partly overlapping "jobs" in a party a bad thing? Having multiple PCs that can heal, for instance, is especially useful if the primary healer is downed or otherwise unavailable. Heck, there is even an official class (Bard) that is dedicated to filling various roles at a lesser effectiveness than a primary-role class.

Lay off of the straw men and projection insults against min-maxers as though we are all the same and approach the game from the same exact way. We aren't and we don't.

da_chicken
2014-07-30, 01:38 PM
Usually I respond to "I don't have that spell" with "what other options are there?" My characters never have the luxury of being able to stop the adventure, find a spell, add it to my spellbook, prepare it, and then cast it. Hell, my characters usually don't have the luxury of stopping the adventure to rest and prepare a different spell in most cases.

"Sorry, I took identify instead of comprehend languages today because we found that magic ring. I can't read the tablet."

"Sorry, I didn't prepare knock. I didn't know we were going in a dungeon today. We've been travelling the wilderness the past three days."

"Sorry, I have fly prepared but I'm out of 3rd level slots."

"No, I don't have charm person or suggestion. We've been fighting undead in a tomb."

In most cases, the response from the party is to find another solution, not wait for the Wizard to fix it.

"Oh, well, we can take a rubbing and you can translate it later."

"I guess we wait for the Rogue to try it, or the Barbarian can bash the door down."

"Crap. I guess I have my rope and a potion of levitate?"

"I guess we can try to bribe the guards or sneak past them, then. Stupid Paladin won't let us just kill them."

Fwiffo86
2014-07-30, 02:02 PM
If you are at work, print the thing out or put it on your mobile device (phone, tablet, laptop, whatever) and during your breaks or whenever you are posting on this forum read the relevant parts before posting.


Your assumptions are flawed regarding my available resources.

"Deliberate ignorance means, intentionally ignoring a fact when one has every reason to believe about its existence. When knowledge of existence of a particular fact is an essential part of an offence, such knowledge may be established if the person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless s/he actually believes that it does not exist.

Deliberate ignorance may be established when:

1)The person actually knew about a particular fact.

2)The person deliberately closed his/her eyes to what s/he had every reason to believe was the fact.

3)The requisite proof of knowledge on the part of a person cannot be established by merely demonstrating that s/he was negligent, careless or foolish."

No where in this legal definition of Deliberate Ignorance does it state anything about "lacking access to materials sufficient to prove/disprove a thought, idea, or concept".

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deliberate-ignorance/ Link provided for fact checking.


I would respond, if that was true, like this: I already prefer sorcerers. It pleases me that WotC is at least not throwing all balance from 4e, and that we can finally have a wizard that has to actually limit themselves and focus on area of specialization rather than turning themselves paranoid all problem solvers.

Please see previous posts and above regarding lack of access. When the question was posed to you, I was genuinely interested in your opinion given the parameters I laid out. The quoted section of your post was the type of answer I was looking for. Concise, polite, and useful. I thank you for that answer.

Lokiare
2014-07-30, 02:10 PM
Your assumptions are flawed regarding my available resources.

"Deliberate ignorance means, intentionally ignoring a fact when one has every reason to believe about its existence. When knowledge of existence of a particular fact is an essential part of an offence, such knowledge may be established if the person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless s/he actually believes that it does not exist.

Deliberate ignorance may be established when:

1)The person actually knew about a particular fact.

2)The person deliberately closed his/her eyes to what s/he had every reason to believe was the fact.

3)The requisite proof of knowledge on the part of a person cannot be established by merely demonstrating that s/he was negligent, careless or foolish."

No where in this legal definition of Deliberate Ignorance does it state anything about "lacking access to materials sufficient to prove/disprove a thought, idea, or concept".

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deliberate-ignorance/ Link provided for fact checking.


Please see previous posts and above regarding lack of access. When the question was posed to you, I was genuinely interested in your opinion given the parameters I laid out. The quoted section of your post was the type of answer I was looking for. Concise, polite, and useful. I thank you for that answer.

ig·no·rance
noun \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\

: a lack of knowledge, understanding, or education : the state of being ignorant

de·lib·er·ate
adjective \di-ˈli-bə-rət, -ˈlib-rət\

: done or said in a way that is planned or intended : done or said on purpose

Not in a courtroom. We are using the English language. Therefore we use the English definition.

If you don't have access then wait until you do to ask these kinds of questions or make comments. You'll find that you get better responses.

Lokiare
2014-07-30, 02:11 PM
Usually I respond to "I don't have that spell" with "what other options are there?" My characters never have the luxury of being able to stop the adventure, find a spell, add it to my spellbook, prepare it, and then cast it. Hell, my characters usually don't have the luxury of stopping the adventure to rest and prepare a different spell in most cases.

"Sorry, I took identify instead of comprehend languages today because we found that magic ring. I can't read the tablet."

"Sorry, I didn't prepare knock. I didn't know we were going in a dungeon today. We've been travelling the wilderness the past three days."

"Sorry, I have fly prepared but I'm out of 3rd level slots."

"No, I don't have charm person or suggestion. We've been fighting undead in a tomb."

In most cases, the response from the party is to find another solution, not wait for the Wizard to fix it.

"Oh, well, we can take a rubbing and you can translate it later."

"I guess we wait for the Rogue to try it, or the Barbarian can bash the door down."

"Crap. I guess I have my rope and a potion of levitate?"

"I guess we can try to bribe the guards or sneak past them, then. Stupid Paladin won't let us just kill them."

Unfortunately in 5E its more like "Oh good I prepared that spell. Good thing we prepare spells instead of tying them directly to spell slots and we can prepare any number of any level of spells so I can stop preparing low level damage spells and only grab the utility spells so that I always have the high level spell I want and the low level ones too."

charcoalninja
2014-07-30, 02:21 PM
Your assumptions are flawed regarding my available resources.

"Deliberate ignorance means, intentionally ignoring a fact when one has every reason to believe about its existence. When knowledge of existence of a particular fact is an essential part of an offence, such knowledge may be established if the person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless s/he actually believes that it does not exist.

Deliberate ignorance may be established when:

1)The person actually knew about a particular fact.

2)The person deliberately closed his/her eyes to what s/he had every reason to believe was the fact.

3)The requisite proof of knowledge on the part of a person cannot be established by merely demonstrating that s/he was negligent, careless or foolish."

No where in this legal definition of Deliberate Ignorance does it state anything about "lacking access to materials sufficient to prove/disprove a thought, idea, or concept".

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deliberate-ignorance/ Link provided for fact checking.



Please see previous posts and above regarding lack of access. When the question was posed to you, I was genuinely interested in your opinion given the parameters I laid out. The quoted section of your post was the type of answer I was looking for. Concise, polite, and useful. I thank you for that answer.

If you can post on a web forum you can read the basic rules. You'd have been able to read the entire section on how Spells work 5 times over in the time it took you to write these posts saying you don't have access to the pdf. More importantly if you don't have the rules handy, and haven't read them, why are you posting as if you know them? Saying you haven't seen any indication that Wizards get access to additional spells is like me saying I've seen no indication that 13th age allows melee attacks(because I haven't read 13th age).

Jeraa
2014-07-30, 02:50 PM
If you can post on a web forum you can read the basic rules. You'd have been able to read the entire section on how Spells work 5 times over in the time it took you to write these posts saying you don't have access to the pdf. More importantly if you don't have the rules handy, and haven't read them, why are you posting as if you know them? Saying you haven't seen any indication that Wizards get access to additional spells is like me saying I've seen no indication that 13th age allows melee attacks(because I haven't read 13th age).

Please read what he wrote.


As far as the access assumption: Again... I am at work. I have access to the internet. I do NOT have access much less permission to download pdfs off of sites not recognized as safe by my office and network administrators. Thus, I do not have access to the pdf while I am at work.

Just because you have internet access does not mean you can access the PDF. It is entirely possible that this forum is accessible, but the Dungeons and Dragons site is blocked, or at least downloads from it. I know when I was in school, they severely limited what websites you could access. Many employers do the same.

Envyus
2014-07-30, 02:53 PM
Unfortunately in 5E its more like "Oh good I prepared that spell. Good thing we prepare spells instead of tying them directly to spell slots and we can prepare any number of any level of spells so I can stop preparing low level damage spells and only grab the utility spells so that I always have the high level spell I want and the low level ones too."

Yep my 3 high level spell slots are now gone and because I did not get any damaging spells that I could use with my lower level slots the gang of orcs that came through the door are going to rip me apart. :smallannoyed:

Your idea is horrible because of how few spell slots you have.

You also don't prepare that many spell. At level 20 you max out at 25 spells prepared. At level lets say 8 with 20 Int you have 13 spells prepared and 12 spell slots. 4 Level 1 3 level 2 3 level 3 and 2 level 4. This limit does not give you everything you need to tackle every problem.

da_chicken
2014-07-30, 04:21 PM
Unfortunately in 5E its more like "Oh good I prepared that spell. Good thing we prepare spells instead of tying them directly to spell slots and we can prepare any number of any level of spells so I can stop preparing low level damage spells and only grab the utility spells so that I always have the high level spell I want and the low level ones too."

That's not my experience. Not with 3e. Not with 5e. Maybe it's an issue when you get to high level and are only playing Basic, but it's not my experience at all playing below level 10.

Cibulan
2014-07-30, 04:51 PM
That's not my experience. Not with 3e. Not with 5e. Maybe it's an issue when you get to high level and are only playing Basic, but it's not my experience at all playing below level 10.It's only an issue on Internet forums. Pure theorycraft.

Zeuel
2014-07-30, 06:18 PM
Having read the alpha playtest I am a lot more confident about the balance in 5e than I was before. I am someone who was burned REALLY BAD by horrible game balance in 3.X so having a game be at least reasonably balanced is important to me and I refuse to touch D&D 3.5 or Paizo's D&D 3.55 as a result. Even if 5e still has LFQW it seems like they put a major cap on just far high the Wizard could go(way less spell slots, a lot of spells being less powerful than in previous editions, metamagic being Sorcerer only, etc) while raising how high they start over earlier non-4e editions(although IMO a 1st level 4e Wizard is proportionately stronger than a 5e Wizard).

Even though 4e has been my absolute favorite edition so far I'm still pretty confident that 5e will have some semblance of balance and (barring the subclasses clearly designed for people who don't want to have to think very much) the classes will almost all be pretty interesting to play.

SiuiS
2014-07-30, 10:56 PM
1. You mean being a scholar? You mean being a lawyer? You mean being a machine operator, being able to be a successful diplomat? You mean being a philosopher?

Yes. Because that's what a wizard is; someone who philosophizes, engages in pseudolegal maneuvering, and engages physical forces specifically of occult laws rather than mundane ones.

Calling out other things that also fit isn't an argument. That's like saying that all dentists are actually school teachers because a bachelor's degree is all the same stuff so they've got the same base chassis.


2. Its not superstition if its true, or belief if its fact.

I disagree. Superstition is assumed causation, and that's what much of magic is. A wizard believes bat poop causes fire. But a more educated wizard knows that bat poop isn't necessary, it's a mnemonic crutch, and the psion knows the magical ritual and formula isn't necessary, it's just principles in application.

The second part is demonstratably false. See the links about rationalization. Fact is something you believe in. Belief always plays a part.


3. And if wizards weren't breakable, they would not get broken and it wouldn't BE a player thing now would it? we wouldn't have to trust an honor system

You're arguing against yourself though.

You are the one who said that any DM can be a bad DM and that's not a game issue. Well any player can be a bad player. Why is that a game issue?
A class is a tool. It's common rhetoric that a knife is not good or bad. It can be used to cut bread or to kill but that's not the knife's fault. A class, too, can make a game better or make it worse. But that use is not a fault of the class. It's a fault of people.

You do have to trust an honor system, always. You just don't like that I think both honor systems are equal.


wouldn't have to constantly worry if the wizard has finally become broken or not, constantly worry about whether or not if they have finally become too powerful

You don't have to worry about these anyways. This is borrowing trouble when you don't need it. This is a self fulfilling prophecy. :smallconfused:

I agree about D&D culture though. It's kinda toxic. I can't game with any D&D players anymore. They are too linear, too narrow in scope for a lot of the games I want to play. Not that this is bad; I'm sure I'm too abstract and my thoughts too diffuse for them. But it does kinda stink.


lets ignore the roleplaying aspect entirely for a moment. when I play something in a team effort, I don't want to solve everything. I want to solve the thing I'm meant to solve. solving other things is the other guys job, not mine. I don't heal. I don't sneak around. I don't wear armor and wield a sword, I cast fireball. optimizing to solve everyones elses problem is saying "I don't trust you to do your job yourself" and therefore I don't optimize. optimizing and solving everything is too easy for my tastes, its making things too easy, or its upping the difficulty to a level I don't want, to a level up of obsessive tactical minutiae I don't want to deal with. I HATE having an automatic solution for every situation, it makes me feel like nothing is challenging for me. what I want is solutions for the things I specialize in, other things is for other people in the group to figure out. because when I start going around solving everybody's problems for them when they are capable of doing it themselves, thats not being helpful, thats being patronizing and smothering. the wizard class is simply TOO flexible and without limit for me to like solving any problem with it, because the solutions are too obvious, because even if the problem of "you don't have that spell" comes up, the most logical solution is to, guess what, learn it! because even if in the situation I don't use that solution, I will go and learn that solution next time! and from there its all too easy to devise a default loud out of spells to get out of any situation you can't already solve, with all your spellbooks and then prepare the spells needed to come back and solve it tomorrow, which is not a challenge for me. thats just an inconvenience, especially when there is four allies who can solve it for me.

This is all personal stuff. Not game stuff.

I'm usually team captain. It is my job to solve every problem. That doesn't mean I am in all places at once, though; being a wizard isn't about walking up and casting a spell and everyone else follows. It's about meta knowledge and delegation. My spells are not the tools I use to solve problems. My team mates are the tools I use to solve problems. My spells allow my team mates to work at optimum capacity. Sometimes that's budding the team. Sometimes that's cursing the enemy. Sometimes that's just preparing magic gear. Sometimes, that's teleporting everyone away so nobody dies. Sometimes that's killing the mooks so the team can handle specific threats. And sometimes, usually more often, that's having the intelligence and resources to get recon and most effectively deploy my team.

Your dislike is based on the idea that when the rogue goes to sneak somewhere, I will stop him and turn invisible and cast silence and do the sneaking myself. That when the fighter goes to slay a dragon I will stop her and start slingig spells through the scry and fry. And you believe this is optimization. But it's not; optimization is the most efficient use of the most efficient tool in a timely manner. I will disguise the thief with ablative magics, I will render the fighter able to levitate and immune to dragon breath, and I will be doing some other, third thing myself because achieving each task separately is ineffective by compared to doing them all at once. When I say I can solve every problem you hear I will solve every problem, and that's just not possible.

If you don't think that redundancy is good in a team, where as a wizard I can stop-gap any holes in our strategy, then next time you play D&D, make sure only the fighter ever wears weapons and armor. No one else. Because that's his job; the paladin, ranger, barbarian, thief, other fighter, they shouldn't do that.


so yes, it is bad, because it promotes a paranoid mindset of applying spell A to slot B even if you don't break the game with it. it makes me feel too much like one of those doomsday preparation people. I don't want to play the wizard to be Mr. "I AM GOING TO DIE IF I DON'T GRAB EVERYTHING USEFUL IN ANY POSSIBLE SITUATION AAAAAAAAAAAAH." it makes me feel like the DM has it out for me, even if they don't.

Those situations do suck. But I tell you from experience, it is worse when you don't have anything to help and the DM really does have it out for you.


And you should understand that not everyone has complete access to this information at all times. Some of us have jobs, and families which cut into our research time. So pardon me for not having the time to actually read every single word of the documents I have. I ask, because I was curious and don't have my documents with me.

I would appreciate you taking your condescending attitude elsewhere.

Yes. This is difficult sometimes. A forum post can be half written, dabbled in and corrected in snippets over time. Reading rules from a PDF you have to constantly keep loaded is much harder.

PinkysBrain
2014-07-31, 06:37 PM
The casters are meant too enhance others not become Solo god kings.

Is that why Polymorph Self didn't have a system shock but Polymorph Other did? Wizards had more hard counters in the old days, but they were more about wiping the battlefield clear with AoE damage than enhancing others ... not entirely unlike 5e.

Thrythlind
2014-08-02, 06:20 AM
It's way more balanced than 3.x/PF, but we're back to spells being the main determinant of narrative fiat.

Clerics do have access to Healing Word; it's still a spell, but it's effectively a Minor action.

There's a maneuver-based Fighter, but it looks pretty poor in comparison. (For example, its "encounter" - and more realistically, "every two or three encounters" abilities are about the potency of a 4e At-Will or worse.)

Perhaps most critically for me, we're back to spells in (many) monster stat blocks. :smallsigh:

For what reason would there not be spells in monster blocks?

Thrythlind
2014-08-02, 06:22 AM
Is that why Polymorph Self didn't have a system shock but Polymorph Other did? Wizards had more hard counters in the old days, but they were more about wiping the battlefield clear with AoE damage than enhancing others ... not entirely unlike 5e.

In my experience with D&D, the most effective use of spells was not damage dealing. That lasted for one or two encounters only and was an inefficient use of ability. Tipping the odds one way or another with spells like grease or enlarge required fewer spells per fight to have an impact.

archaeo
2014-08-02, 06:39 AM
For what reason would there not be spells in monster blocks?

obryn means spell lists, like "The acolyte wizard knows shield, magic missile, and fireball" or something. In 4e, these would be separately listed powers in the stat block, whereas 5e simply lists the spells and expects the DM to look them up, so far.

For some people, this is a natural part of the process that allows for greater flexibility for spellcasting enemies. For others, like obryn, it's a time-wasting bit of pageturning that can be easily prevented by putting everything the DM needs in the statblock.

It's pretty much a matter of taste, though I think obryn's preference (if I've understood it correctly; sorry if I'm just stuffing words in your mouth otherwise, obryn) is a reasonable one that improves DM usability more often than not.

Presumably (if WotC's third-party partners are thinking straight) Morningstar or whatever publication route they use will provide hyperlinked spell information. But at the table sans electronic aids, for all the monster stat blocks we've seen (i.e. who knows what the MM stuff will look like), DMs will need to use the PHB to look up spells if they haven't copied out the necessary info beforehand.

obryn
2014-08-02, 09:01 AM
For what reason would there not be spells in monster blocks?
Yep, archaeo pretty much got it.

When I'm running a monster or enemy, I never want to reference anything but the enemy's stat block.

SiuiS
2014-08-02, 03:27 PM
For what reason would there not be spells in monster blocks?

As said, it's a matter of use. You shouldn't have to choose between memorization of the materials or incessant page flipping.

hawklost
2014-08-02, 04:56 PM
For what reason would there not be spells in monster blocks?

Lets look at this from the publishers perspective quickly.

Lets say there are 300 Monsters in the book
Each monster takes up an average of the page already.
On Average, there are 2 spells (or spell like abilities that work like spells) per monster, some have none, some have a lot more
Lets say that there are effectively 65 lines of text per half page (so a total of 130 lines to use) (based on a quick look at the Basic pdf

Now, if each spell block takes up around 5 lines of text we have either
- Added about 5*600/130 ~ 24 added pages to the MM OR
- We have removed about 15-20 monsters from the MM to keep it the same length (Much more likely since there are a max number of pages allowed usually)

Would you rather Lose 15-20 of those monsters OR would you rather have to look up some spells once in a while?
Or even remove some of the fluff text of the monster (yes, I know some of you are perfectly happy without any of the fluff)

Considering they created multiple MMs for 3.x, you can assume they have more ideas for monsters than the 5e book will contain already.

All statistics were made up for an example, I have no idea how many monsters there are in the MM nor how many spells per monster there are. I also do not know how much room a spell in the monster block would take up.

Envyus
2014-08-02, 05:26 PM
Yep, archaeo pretty much got it.

When I'm running a monster or enemy, I never want to reference anything but the enemy's stat block.

That is fine just don't use the few spell casting monsters that will be in the book. Of the Monsters we currently have after all 3 of them were spell casters and 2 of them were pretty much Wizards.

I like spell casting monsters myself because I like how versatile they can be.

Tholomyes
2014-08-02, 05:48 PM
Lets look at this from the publishers perspective quickly.

Lets say there are 300 Monsters in the book
Each monster takes up an average of the page already.
On Average, there are 2 spells (or spell like abilities that work like spells) per monster, some have none, some have a lot more
Lets say that there are effectively 65 lines of text per half page (so a total of 130 lines to use) (based on a quick look at the Basic pdf

Now, if each spell block takes up around 5 lines of text we have either
- Added about 5*600/130 ~ 24 added pages to the MM OR
- We have removed about 15-20 monsters from the MM to keep it the same length (Much more likely since there are a max number of pages allowed usually)

Would you rather Lose 15-20 of those monsters OR would you rather have to look up some spells once in a while?
Or even remove some of the fluff text of the monster (yes, I know some of you are perfectly happy without any of the fluff)

Considering they created multiple MMs for 3.x, you can assume they have more ideas for monsters than the 5e book will contain already.

All statistics were made up for an example, I have no idea how many monsters there are in the MM nor how many spells per monster there are. I also do not know how much room a spell in the monster block would take up. Personally, I'd rather monsters have fewer spells to worry about, and instead only have a few that you need to worry about. In 3e, it always felt like NPC casters had too many spells, as they had a full day's amount of spells for a single fight, and often times having a variety of spells didn't really add much, except adding time to fights.

An NPC necromancer could easily just have a necromancy cantrip (taking up barely more than a weapon's space on the stat block), Ray of Enfeeblement, and Cause Fear, written somewhat in shorthand, like:

Ray of Enfeeblement (x2). +6 to Hit, range 100 ft., one target. Hit: Target has Disadvantage on Str and Dex attack rolls, and can deal a max of 1 damage from such attacks, for one minute, or until a successful Con Save (DC 14), made at the end of each of their turns.

Cause Fear (x3). Each creature of your choice within 10 ft. must make a Wis Saving Throw, or be frightened for one minute, or until a successful Wis Save (DC 14), made at the end of each of their turns.

Stuff like creating undead could easily be a descriptor for zombies included in the XP budget. False-life could be effectively a descriptor for a greater Con bonus.

obryn
2014-08-02, 05:54 PM
Would you rather Lose 15-20 of those monsters OR would you rather have to look up some spells once in a while?
Or even remove some of the fluff text of the monster (yes, I know some of you are perfectly happy without any of the fluff)
Yes, or yes. Or stop relying so much on spells.


That is fine just don't use the few spell casting monsters that will be in the book. Of the Monsters we currently have after all 3 of them were spell casters and 2 of them were pretty much Wizards.
Or just not run 5e? :smallsmile:

hawklost
2014-08-02, 06:40 PM
Personally, I'd rather monsters have fewer spells to worry about, and instead only have a few that you need to worry about. In 3e, it always felt like NPC casters had too many spells, as they had a full day's amount of spells for a single fight, and often times having a variety of spells didn't really add much, except adding time to fights.

An NPC necromancer could easily just have a necromancy cantrip (taking up barely more than a weapon's space on the stat block), Ray of Enfeeblement, and Cause Fear, written somewhat in shorthand, like:

Ray of Enfeeblement (x2). +6 to Hit, range 100 ft., one target. Hit: Target has Disadvantage on Str and Dex attack rolls, and can deal a max of 1 damage from such attacks, for one minute, or until a successful Con Save (DC 14), made at the end of each of their turns.

Cause Fear (x3). Each creature of your choice within 10 ft. must make a Wis Saving Throw, or be frightened for one minute, or until a successful Wis Save (DC 14), made at the end of each of their turns.

Stuff like creating undead could easily be a descriptor for zombies included in the XP budget. False-life could be effectively a descriptor for a greater Con bonus.

Man I am glad I am not in your groups. I have enjoyed times when the party takes much longer to do something than is anticipated in a campaign setting and found that the NPC caster has used that time to cast spells. If my party is told that a person was captured by cultists to be sacrificed then we kinda assume that unless there is a very specific time that the sacrifice to happen that it will happen within a reasonable amount of time. That means we can't go on 1-2 side quests or even sometimes shopping expeditions just cause we feel like it. Kinda makes the game feel more alive when the NPCs have their own time tables that don't just stop when players ignore them. As for having an extreme limit to spells for Evil Necromancer, well then, Thank goodness we have a Paladin to block fear and know that all Necromancers can only cast RoE so we prep con bonus items.

Sartharina
2014-08-02, 06:48 PM
I find it stupid when monsters have specific spells, but don't reference them. However, if a monster's supposed to have multiple spells,

Something 4e had an advantage with, though, was the conciseness of its power blocks. Though those led to other problems.

Envyus
2014-08-02, 07:20 PM
Yes, or yes. Or stop relying so much on spells.


Or just not run 5e? :smallsmile:

People like spell casting monsters for being far more versatile, there is no need for monsters that are clearly casting spells to have them all written in the block. write them down if you don't like to look them up. If all of their powers were typed out we would have lost stuff and people like the versatility that caster monsters have.


Why is this option the first you would pick instead of just ignoring an optional part of the game. I know you don't like feats as well and like using spell casting monsters they are optional as well so you could just ignore them. There won't be too many spell casting monsters in the game so don't use them and focus on other monsters.

obryn
2014-08-02, 08:49 PM
People like spell casting monsters for being far more versatile, there is no need for monsters that are clearly casting spells to have them all written in the block. write them down if you don't like to look them up. If all of their powers were typed out we would have lost stuff and people like the versatility that caster monsters have.
Good for them. I'm glad 5e works for them, and I begrudge them nothing.


Why is this option the first you would pick instead of just ignoring an optional part of the game. I know you don't like feats as well and like using spell casting monsters they are optional as well so you could just ignore them. There won't be too many spell casting monsters in the game so don't use them and focus on other monsters.
Why? Because I already have many other games I enjoy playing - D&D and otherwise. And by your suggestion I'd never be able to use an iconic monster such as a Lich without fiddling with spell lists. I don't feel a pressing need to settle for 5e when there's games which fit my needs better.

Re: Feats, I think you're misunderstanding my basic point. I don't like feats because in part they are fiddly and obnoxious, but even moreso because I think classes should be the containers for interesting fiddly bits.

The way 5e has done it doesn't make feats optional for me, because feats are the repository for interesting and/or necessary character building resources. While you can play a game without them in 5e, your game will be a whole lot less mechanically involving as a result. That's by design; going featless is an "OSR-style" switch. The problem is, I'm not looking for an OSR-style game out of 5e.

Envyus
2014-08-02, 09:20 PM
Why? Because I already have many other games I enjoy playing - D&D and otherwise. And by your suggestion I'd never be able to use an iconic monster such as a Lich without fiddling with spell lists. I don't feel a pressing need to settle for 5e when there's games which fit my needs better.


Just write down what the Lich can do then. Liches are the best for this as they are likely to be fought more then once anyway and it would be boring if every time you fought the Lich it could only do what it did in your last battle. If a Lich is a caster they have a lot of options that they won't be able to use in a single fight meaning that in any rematches you don't have good idea of what they can do making them challenging.

I disagree with you about Feats as well. I really like them and find they make great customization options but I don't want to argue with you about them.

SiuiS
2014-08-02, 10:16 PM
Would you rather Lose 15-20 of those monsters OR would you rather have to look up some spells once in a while?
Or even remove some of the fluff text of the monster (yes, I know some of you are perfectly happy without any of the fluff)
]

Neither. I would rather a well designed monster exist than either of these.

Currently to run a monster, I have to remember where it is in the book or tediously write out it's entire block. I then have to memorize or write out what it's powers are and do. I then have to reference any systems those powers effect. That's too much work in a world where Dungeonworld and D&D 4E exist. That's the same prissy dedication to system mastery that led to intentional imbalance in 3e.

A well designed monster system doesn't need to say "as the spell", it doesn't even need to copy the spell. It just needs to say "ray 60', turns to stone. DC 15" or something.

I want elegance


That is fine just don't use the few spell casting monsters that will be in the book. Of the Monsters we currently have after all 3 of them were spell casters and 2 of them were pretty much Wizards.

I like spell casting monsters myself because I like how versatile they can be.

This is basically the oberoni fallacy isn't it? Not a problem if you decide to ignore the mechanic?


Man I am glad I am not in your groups. I have enjoyed times when the party takes much longer to do something than is anticipated in a campaign setting and found that the NPC caster has used that time to cast spells. If my party is told that a person was captured by cultists to be sacrificed then we kinda assume that unless there is a very specific time that the sacrifice to happen that it will happen within a reasonable amount of time. That means we can't go on 1-2 side quests or even sometimes shopping expeditions just cause we feel like it. Kinda makes the game feel more alive when the NPCs have their own time tables that don't just stop when players ignore them. As for having an extreme limit to spells for Evil Necromancer, well then, Thank goodness we have a Paladin to block fear and know that all Necromancers can only cast RoE so we prep con bonus items.

False comparison. The idea that monsters without spell lists don't have a timetable is illogical an an invalid foundation for complaint. My cultists who need a sacrifice by the gibbous moon will sacrifice on the gibbous moon regardless of whether they are casting a group-meta magic enhanced summon monster X, or if they're just "performing a ritual".

Kludginess of rule granularity has no effect on DM autonomy or intelligence.

Envyus
2014-08-02, 10:20 PM
Neither. I would rather a well designed monster exist than either of these.

Currently to run a monster, I have to remember where it is in the book or tediously write out it's entire block. I then have to memorize or write out what it's powers are and do. I then have to reference any systems those powers effect. That's too much work in a world where Dungeonworld and D&D 4E exist. That's the same prissy dedication to system mastery that led to intentional imbalance in 3e.

A well designed monster system doesn't need to say "as the spell", it doesn't even need to copy the spell. It just needs to say "ray 60', turns to stone. DC 15" or something.

I want elegance



This is basically the oberoni fallacy isn't it? Not a problem if you decide to ignore the mechanic?



There is not going to be that many monsters that have spells. The few that do are supposed to be casters like Wizards or Sorcerers. So you won't have to do that every time and all the monsters that are not casters with tons of options will be doing what you want.

I like Spell casting monsters as the going to check what the power does, Memorizing it or writting it down does not bug me. But for the people that don't like it and refuse to do a slight amount of work to make it easier then flipping to a page in a book. Just don't use the monsters in the games you run.

hawklost
2014-08-02, 10:29 PM
False comparison. The idea that monsters without spell lists don't have a timetable is illogical an an invalid foundation for complaint. My cultists who need a sacrifice by the gibbous moon will sacrifice on the gibbous moon regardless of whether they are casting a group-meta magic enhanced summon monster X, or if they're just "performing a ritual".

Kludginess of rule granularity has no effect on DM autonomy or intelligence.

I Caster without a spell list cannot use any buff spells or summons if there is warning that a party is coming.

Scenario 1: Party screws up and lets a single enemy escape, they warn the next group and continue running to Evil Caster to warn him.
5e: Caster prepares himself by casting long term buff on himself as well as any other abilities/traps that he can do with his abilities. Choosing then to meet the party or wait for them to come to him.
4e: Caster waits around for the party to come or goes out to meet him. since he is missing those extra spells that might have helped

Scenario 2: Party stealth kills all enemies in dungeon and Evil Caster doesn't know they are there. They pop in on his room.
5e: Caster might be without certain defenses if the game adventure assumes he knew the party was coming. He needs to choose between spending his first few rounds casting buffs and prep work or just outright attacking
4e: Caster is always fully prepared since he doesn't have those spells to cast. He either always has the abilities or he doesn't.

In both cases, the challenge level of the encounter would be radically different to the party Because the enemy Caster HAD those extra spells that you find erroneous and wasteful.

SiuiS
2014-08-02, 10:49 PM
There is not going to be that many monsters that have spells. The few that do are supposed to be casters like Wizards or Sorcerers. So you won't have to do that every time and all the monsters that are not casters with tons of options will be doing what you want.

I like Spell casting monsters as the going to check what the power does, Memorizing it or writting it down does not bug me. But for the people that don't like it and refuse to do a slight amount of work to make it easier then flipping to a page in a book. Just don't use the monsters in the games you run.

Then why not have regular demons which have "some of them are wizards. Add a wizard level if you want"? Why make Lich a monster at all, when it should be a template given to casters, and this a spell that permanently modifies your stats?

Inelegant.


I Caster without a spell list cannot use any buff spells or summons if there is warning that a party is coming.

Poppycock.
A) monsters with buffs in older editions had to have those buffs spelled out anyway, jut like in asking.
B) not having mage armor, divine might and resist fire does not keep you from saying "with a little warning, this monster gains +4 AC, +3 hit/damage, and resists 10 (fire)".

In the other hand, not spelling it out as they eventually were forced to do leads to issues where you forget relevant details in the heat of battle, which is why we had stuff like "(this is already accounted for in the stat block)" in late third edition.

"Caster" has nothing to do with ability to prepare.

Tholomyes
2014-08-02, 11:00 PM
I Caster without a spell list cannot use any buff spells or summons if there is warning that a party is coming.

Scenario 1: Party screws up and lets a single enemy escape, they warn the next group and continue running to Evil Caster to warn him.
5e: Caster prepares himself by casting long term buff on himself as well as any other abilities/traps that he can do with his abilities. Choosing then to meet the party or wait for them to come to him.
4e: Caster waits around for the party to come or goes out to meet him. since he is missing those extra spells that might have helped
In 5e many buff spells are Concentration duration, so I doubt this will work too well in practice. In 4e (or any system where caster NPCs don't have defined spell lists) boost the level of the monster by a little bit, and fluff it as having buffed themselves beforehand, if you think the party is taking too long. (Granted you can also do this in 5e, but there's still no prevailing reason to force them to have a spell list)


Scenario 2: Party stealth kills all enemies in dungeon and Evil Caster doesn't know they are there. They pop in on his room.
5e: Caster might be without certain defenses if the game adventure assumes he knew the party was coming. He needs to choose between spending his first few rounds casting buffs and prep work or just outright attacking
4e: Caster is always fully prepared since he doesn't have those spells to cast. He either always has the abilities or he doesn't.Many of the relevant buff spells we've seen are Concentration, or otherwise low duration spells, so unless they have warning 30 seconds or so in advance (and not much more or less) that the party is going to bust down the door, they might be just as in need of buffing. Moreover, certain things can be built into the stat block, without being spells. For example, Mage armor could easily be a part of a wizard's statblock as a one-line description like "If [Wizard] is unprepared for combat, they will not have their defensive spells up, and will be AC X until they spend a standard action casting those spells."

Sartharina
2014-08-02, 11:59 PM
Then why not have regular demons which have "some of them are wizards. Add a wizard level if you want"? Why make Lich a monster at all, when it should be a template given to casters, and this a spell that permanently modifies your stats?

Inelegant.And triple(Or more!) the amount of page-flipping?! (You have to switch to the monster, switch to the class, AND switch to the spell book. And then build the spell book yourself.) Oh hell no.

Templates need to die because they're a pain in the ass to use. And monsters should not have player class levels. If you're grabbing a spellcaster monster(Which should be a special monster), it should have spell slots and a spell list. However, as a monster, it doesn't need full spell slots or complete spell lists - you can have a high-level caster monster have only 7 spell slots compared to a comparable-level Wizard's 27 or so, and only four spells known/prepared instead of twelve - one encounter's worth of spells, instead of a full day's worth.

And, if you were to make Lich a template instead of a monster, you'd then need to make yet another Spellcasting monster, because NPCs shouldn't have PC classes due to nova/resource imbalance.


"Caster" has nothing to do with ability to prepare.But it does have to deal with system consistency and it usually implies a degree of flexibility.


This is basically the oberoni fallacy isn't it? Not a problem if you decide to ignore the mechanic?No, this is the Oberoni Fallacy Fallacy: "If I don't like a rule and can ignore it, it means it's broken".

SiuiS
2014-08-04, 04:25 AM
And triple(Or more!) the amount of page-flipping?! (You have to switch to the monster, switch to the class, AND switch to the spell book. And then build the spell book yourself.) Oh hell no.

Templates need to die because they're a pain in the ass to use. And monsters should not have player class levels.

Exactly.



No, this is the Oberoni Fallacy Fallacy: "If I don't like a rule and can ignore it, it means it's broken".

I'm not sure if you're making an actual point or just tossing back rhetoric? I meant it in all seriousness. "This rule isn't a problem because you can houserule around it" is quite literally the fallacy in question. Aiming to debunk that by saying it's my preference won't work because it's not my preference. I can just admit that it's bad design.

The Mormegil
2014-08-04, 05:45 AM
The game isn't about strict, hard-nosed balance, its about "being D&D", and thank God for that. If that is what you desire then (non-4E) D&D is not the game for you.

...I just want a game for me... :smallfrown:

Envyus
2014-08-04, 06:07 AM
Exactly.



I'm not sure if you're making an actual point or just tossing back rhetoric? I meant it in all seriousness. "This rule isn't a problem because you can houserule around it" is quite literally the fallacy in question. Aiming to debunk that by saying it's my preference won't work because it's not my preference. I can just admit that it's bad design.

problem is I don`t think it`s bad design. I can get why people don`t like it but it is so easy for them to fix or ignore that complaining about it is pointless.

obryn
2014-08-04, 08:20 AM
problem is I don`t think it`s bad design. I can get why people don`t like it but it is so easy for them to fix or ignore that complaining about it is pointless.
I will disagree with you. I think it is bad design, in that it directly and unnecessarily slows down gameplay. I have similar feelings towards how spell descriptions are written (really, why no save line? AoE?) which compound the issue.

Craft (Cheese)
2014-08-04, 08:27 AM
I will disagree with you. I think it is bad design, in that it directly and unnecessarily slows down gameplay. I have similar feelings towards how spell descriptions are written (really, why no save line? AoE?) which compound the issue.

It's because someone at WotC decided "We should streamline the monster/spell descriptions" without knowing what "streamlining" actually means.

obryn
2014-08-04, 08:38 AM
It's because someone at WotC decided "We should streamline the monster/spell descriptions" without knowing what "streamlining" actually means.
Yeah, or "natural language" for that matter. It's completely possible to have a technical document written well in natural language that nonetheless conveys ideas clearly and precisely. This ain't it. "Natural Language" is not an excuse for shoddy design.

It's doubly infuriating in spell descriptions, because it's a pretty big step down in clarity from 3e spell blocks.

Also, as a last bit, I am unconvinced there will be few monsters with spells in the MM. If the Flameskull is any indication, monsters who shouldn't need to use spells will have them anyway.

da_chicken
2014-08-04, 09:46 AM
It's doubly infuriating in spell descriptions, because it's a pretty big step down in clarity from 3e spell blocks.

The 3e spell block presentation and the 3e spell list presentation are both superior. That's my only real problem with layout so far. I'm hoping the PHB corrects the issue, but I'm assuming they won't.

It's obviously difficult for WotC to maintain, too. For example, did you notice that Faerie Fire is in D&D Basic, but nobody can actually cast it?

Kurald Galain
2014-08-04, 10:45 AM
Yeah, or "natural language" for that matter. It's completely possible to have a technical document written well in natural language that nonetheless conveys ideas clearly and precisely. This ain't it. "Natural Language" is not an excuse for shoddy design.

It's doubly infuriating in spell descriptions, because it's a pretty big step down in clarity from 3e spell blocks.

I agree with that. I have no idea how WOTC came up with this particular step backwards.

(although personally I don't mind having common spells referenced but not copy/pasted, as long as they are common spells. YMMV)

hawklost
2014-08-04, 12:53 PM
Yeah, or "natural language" for that matter. It's completely possible to have a technical document written well in natural language that nonetheless conveys ideas clearly and precisely. This ain't it. "Natural Language" is not an excuse for shoddy design.

It's doubly infuriating in spell descriptions, because it's a pretty big step down in clarity from 3e spell blocks.

Also, as a last bit, I am unconvinced there will be few monsters with spells in the MM. If the Flameskull is any indication, monsters who shouldn't need to use spells will have them anyway.

I feel the problem with 'natural language' documents is this. Unless everyone agrees on all the definitions up front, there will always be someone who tries to twist it to their way. (See the way arguments are appearing on this board alone).

As Bill once said "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."

obryn
2014-08-04, 01:13 PM
I agree with that. I have no idea how WOTC came up with this particular step backwards.
Well, here's my theory. Take it or leave it.

If you have a lot of information in a spell header, it looks complicated, much like a 4e power block looks intimidating. Forget all about usability for a moment; pretend you're a dude who knows nothing at all about D&D. Now look at those spells. And then look at 3e spells or 4e power blocks.

With less technical writing it sure looks easier, much like a 1e spell block does!

Never mind that it's much less usable in play; you and I both know that this is a big step backwards for at-table gameplay. After 4e WotC has come to understand, I think, what Paizo figured out a while back - 95%+ of the time people spend on D&D is reading the books, not playing. And most game elements in a book will never, ever see use in an average year of gaming. So you can get away with unclear writing so long as it looks pretty. And you can get away with some shoddy mechanics or design decisions, so long as it reads nice.

That's why we don't see as many robust keywords in 5e spells, either; keywords and simplification take the magic away. If I cast a spell and it "wraps you head to toe in indestructible vines, making you unable to move," that's pretty flowery and interesting! If I use keywords, I'd call that "stun" or maybe some flavor of "restrain" in 4e, and then how fun is that to read? Never mind that in play it works exactly the same - or that it could instead be "a series of unbreakable chains" or a "solid block of ice" or a "giant grasping hand," for all it matters - because that's the power of natural language. It obfuscates design decisions.

archaeo
2014-08-04, 03:59 PM
obryn et al., do you think it's possible that the designers simply accepted the idea that the PHB alone wouldn't be the tool players would choose to use for spells? For players, you're expected to have a sheet containing all of your info, and they've provided tons of space to write down your spells and the pertinent information. Perhaps they just expected that, at the table, players would be using their character sheets instead of the PHB when referencing spells.

Otherwise, I'm more or less with you on this; while I found the spells a delight to read and really enjoy how the PHB's text works so far, it seems to beg for an at-the-table reference tool. Maybe Morningstar will be free and they expect everyone to use it?

It's a puzzling design decision, for sure, though it has to have been done with some principled reason. Hopefully some principled reason beyond "4e spell blocks were boring!"

Cibulan
2014-08-04, 04:06 PM
obryn et al., do you think it's possible that the designers simply accepted the idea that the PHB alone wouldn't be the tool players would choose to use for spells? For players, you're expected to have a sheet containing all of your info, and they've provided tons of space to write down your spells and the pertinent information. Perhaps they just expected that, at the table, players would be using their character sheets instead of the PHB when referencing spells.

Otherwise, I'm more or less with you on this; while I found the spells a delight to read and really enjoy how the PHB's text works so far, it seems to beg for an at-the-table reference tool. Maybe Morningstar will be free and they expect everyone to use it?

It's a puzzling design decision, for sure, though it has to have been done with some principled reason. Hopefully some principled reason beyond "4e spell blocks were boring!"Aren't they going to be selling per class spell cards? It would make sense if the PHB has the full, wordy descriptions and then they also happen to sell shorter, condensed cards for a "nominal" fee.

da_chicken
2014-08-04, 04:13 PM
With less technical writing it sure looks easier, much like a 1e spell block does!

Actually, I would submit that it's entirely possible that it actually is easier to read. If you make your RPG look like API documentation (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.form(v=vs.110).aspx) it's very easy to use for reference documentation. However, it's essentially impossible to use for a reference manual. The PHB has to be both a manual and a reference, and that's a very difficult position.

I'm pretty technical. I work with data and code all day. Even after 5 years of doing it, reading computer generated XML makes my eyes bleed. It's just not organized in a way that is intended for humans to read even though it's human readable. I've begun to suspect that the 4e method of endless blocks of game pieces is, to most people, like reading XML. It's like you're reading something that doesn't tell you what anything means because you're supposed to know all these definitions, and you go look up those definitions and they lead to more definitions until you get to nonsense like "A baloo is a bear".

They get to the end and think, "But what does the spell actually do?!" If a player can't read the rules and understand them, they're not good rules. They could be mechanically perfect rules, but they're not any good because the player can't decipher them. Dense game rules read like legalese to most people. Imagine if you look up a spell, and instead of seeing a description of what the spell does you see this:


An action lies in conversion for loss or destruction of goods which a bailee has allowed to happen in breach of his duty to his bailor (that is to say it lies in a case which is not otherwise conversion, but would have been detinue before detinue was abolished).

Well, this sure seems like a fun game, huh guys! I know I'm citing tort law and I'm not entirely sure what that says! I'd have to look up conversion, bailment, duty, and detinue right off. Then I might have to look up what "loss or destruction" means. By the time I'm done, I might not even remember what I'm doing.

Look at Magic: The Gathering. That game has to use terse game elements because card space is limited, so it uses a lot of key words. People in that game forget how every keyword works. The only one people remember is how Flying works. It's been over 20 years and still 40% of the player base has no grasp on what Protection actually does even with the mnemonic. Keywords cause the problem that players have to know things they're not reading to be able to understand what they are reading.

The simple truth is that the game books have to be written so that all players can understand them. Most people call that "dumbing down" because if you're honest and call it "simplification" or "writing to the audience" you don't get the same sense of smug superiority when you disgree with it. While I agree that 5e's choice for spell presentation lacks needed functionality, I think it's preferable to the early 4e presentation of pages and page of endless blocks of keywords. That style is a huge turnoff and represents a significant learning curve to the game.

For spell descriptions, I don't need the save in the header. I just want the class so I don't have to cross reference the list. For class spell lists, I would like short descriptions included, and I'd like the Wizard list broken down by school. Other than that, I don't really care.

obryn
2014-08-04, 04:20 PM
It's like you're reading something that doesn't tell you what anything means because you're supposed to know all these definitions, and you go look up those definitions and they lead to more definitions until you get to nonsense like "A baloo is a bear".
Also, "wuzzle" means to mix.


They get to the end and think, "But what does the spell actually do?!" If a player can't read the rules and understand them, they're not good rules. They could be mechanically perfect rules, but they're not any good because the player can't decipher them. Dense game rules read like legalese to most people.
I actually don't completely disagree with you. I think flavor text is more fun to visualize. I can read 4e powers and visualize the in-game events through my mastery of the system. If I see, "Attack 1 enemy in a Close Burst 1. On a hit, deal 2[w] damage and push all other enemies in that burst 1 square, and mark them," I can visualize that as knocking the crud out of one dude, and scaring everyone around you as a result. That's backwards from how D&D has historically done it, though, where it might read "Attack 1 enemy nearby you with a vicious and terrifying roar. All other enemies adjacent to you take a hesitant step backwards from you, and must attack you on their next turn or suffer a -2 to-hit."

It's more flowery and more readable. I am not convinced it's better for a reference work, though it's certainly better for reading.

1337 b4k4
2014-08-04, 05:58 PM
I actually don't completely disagree with you. I think flavor text is more fun to visualize. I can read 4e powers and visualize the in-game events through my mastery of the system. If I see, "Attack 1 enemy in a Close Burst 1. On a hit, deal 2[w] damage and push all other enemies in that burst 1 square, and mark them," I can visualize that as knocking the crud out of one dude, and scaring everyone around you as a result. That's backwards from how D&D has historically done it, though, where it might read "Attack 1 enemy nearby you with a vicious and terrifying roar. All other enemies adjacent to you take a hesitant step backwards from you, and must attack you on their next turn or suffer a -2 to-hit."

It's more flowery and more readable. I am not convinced it's better for a reference work, though it's certainly better for reading.

All of which does kind of lead to the question of why (other than maintaining two versions) in this day and age WotC doesn't produce either a supplement to the DMG, or even include in the DMG a "mechanics only" form of the spell lists. I mean, we have DM screens that boil a lot of flower exploration mechanics into pure numerical and tabular data, why couldn't we have a chapter of the DMG that was condensed spells too?

MeeposFire
2014-08-04, 08:03 PM
Also, "wuzzle" means to mix.


I actually don't completely disagree with you. I think flavor text is more fun to visualize. I can read 4e powers and visualize the in-game events through my mastery of the system. If I see, "Attack 1 enemy in a Close Burst 1. On a hit, deal 2[w] damage and push all other enemies in that burst 1 square, and mark them," I can visualize that as knocking the crud out of one dude, and scaring everyone around you as a result. That's backwards from how D&D has historically done it, though, where it might read "Attack 1 enemy nearby you with a vicious and terrifying roar. All other enemies adjacent to you take a hesitant step backwards from you, and must attack you on their next turn or suffer a -2 to-hit."

It's more flowery and more readable. I am not convinced it's better for a reference work, though it's certainly better for reading.

I will freely admit that one area that 4e is really poor is in the reading. 3e was not much better in most of the books honestly (in both cases I am talking about for player made material such as the complete series and not so much things like campaign settings) but 1e and 2e have books, even player option books like the complete book of bards, that are still fun to read and I do so today.

The 4e power blocks are very useful but I agree they are a turn off for reading. I essentially end up skipping most of the book unless I am creating a character that references the powers and then I only use it for that one class. In 3e I really love the Tome of Magic as it does a great job of adding flavor to some new mechanics. Oddly I also love reading Tome of Battle even if it is similar to a 4e book though I think it was the extra effort in flavoring what became the standard in 4e (with no specific flavor so it could be used by all).

da_chicken
2014-08-04, 08:25 PM
All of which does kind of lead to the question of why (other than maintaining two versions) in this day and age WotC doesn't produce either a supplement to the DMG, or even include in the DMG a "mechanics only" form of the spell lists. I mean, we have DM screens that boil a lot of flower exploration mechanics into pure numerical and tabular data, why couldn't we have a chapter of the DMG that was condensed spells too?

They did.

They called it "SRD".

Tholomyes
2014-08-04, 08:43 PM
They did.

They called it "SRD".With how much it's wrapped up in the OGL, which was a pretty bad move on WotC's part (or at least they perceive it that way; personally, I think the prevalence of d20 games made it easier for new players to get into RPGs, which in turn helped D&D, among other ways it proved to be a boon to them) I don't really see something like that coming out. We're likely to get searchable spells in Morningstar, but that only solves some of the problems, and even then, only if the UI is good enough that it's quicker than sticking post its into a PHB.

The New Bruceski
2014-08-04, 08:44 PM
Do we have any real info on how much the actual PHB will add options to the "boring" classes or is it just guesswork? If I want to chokeslam a goblin, throw it across the room into another enemy and shield-bash a third how much is the DM going to have to make up on the fly?

da_chicken
2014-08-04, 09:03 PM
With how much it's wrapped up in the OGL, which was a pretty bad move on WotC's part (or at least they perceive it that way; personally, I think the prevalence of d20 games made it easier for new players to get into RPGs, which in turn helped D&D, among other ways it proved to be a boon to them) I don't really see something like that coming out. We're likely to get searchable spells in Morningstar, but that only solves some of the problems, and even then, only if the UI is good enough that it's quicker than sticking post its into a PHB.

Oh, I don't think they will make a 5e SRD either. Printing a book that's explicitly just rules is a huge copyright issue because of the Berne convention. Theoretically, you could republish everything in the d20 SRD without agreeing to the OGL and wouldn't break copyright because it's almost entirely game rules (which can't be copyrighted). However, the threat of litigation (even spurious) and the complete lack of cost of the OGL means that, well, it's just easier to go with the OGL. Printing a 100% rules only edition of 5e would just be... really risky.

pwykersotz
2014-08-04, 09:55 PM
Also, "wuzzle" means to mix.


I actually don't completely disagree with you. I think flavor text is more fun to visualize. I can read 4e powers and visualize the in-game events through my mastery of the system. If I see, "Attack 1 enemy in a Close Burst 1. On a hit, deal 2[w] damage and push all other enemies in that burst 1 square, and mark them," I can visualize that as knocking the crud out of one dude, and scaring everyone around you as a result. That's backwards from how D&D has historically done it, though, where it might read "Attack 1 enemy nearby you with a vicious and terrifying roar. All other enemies adjacent to you take a hesitant step backwards from you, and must attack you on their next turn or suffer a -2 to-hit."

It's more flowery and more readable. I am not convinced it's better for a reference work, though it's certainly better for reading.

I'm of multiple views myself. I absolutely love the flavor text. I'm always sad when a spell doesn't have it. Using the flavor makes using the spell feel more immersive...I'm interacting with a world that has stuff outside of my own mind going on. And of course, I can modify it if I want to, but it's there for me to modify. I don't have to make it up in a vacuum.

On the other hand, succinct spell blocks are very nice for reference. Here's the transition:
http://i.imgur.com/rgFW4pR.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/6s9uyui.png

If they were going to trim, I would have preferred them to trim other elements of the table into the text. I celebrate the folding of the Level field into school and eliminating class reference though, as more classes are added it will just get more out of date anyway.

Overall though, I prefer the 3.5 version. The loss of the saving throw line is grievous indeed. :smallfrown:

da_chicken
2014-08-04, 10:10 PM
I actually don't completely disagree with you. I think flavor text is more fun to visualize. I can read 4e powers and visualize the in-game events through my mastery of the system. If I see, "Attack 1 enemy in a Close Burst 1. On a hit, deal 2[w] damage and push all other enemies in that burst 1 square, and mark them," I can visualize that as knocking the crud out of one dude, and scaring everyone around you as a result. That's backwards from how D&D has historically done it, though, where it might read "Attack 1 enemy nearby you with a vicious and terrifying roar. All other enemies adjacent to you take a hesitant step backwards from you, and must attack you on their next turn or suffer a -2 to-hit."

It's more flowery and more readable. I am not convinced it's better for a reference work, though it's certainly better for reading.

I can visualize 4e powers, too, but several of the players at my table would just look at you and say, "just tell me which attack is the best and I'll take that one." They didn't want to read the powers. They just wanted to play the game and not make a stupid choice. Most of the players at my table were like that. I think it's a basic problem that 300 page rule books have. They have to be readable, comprehensible, and approachable by your audience, and they have to function as a reference. I think 4e went too far into the reference realm, and 5e is overcompensating in some areas on the readability side.

Sartharina
2014-08-05, 01:21 AM
Also, "wuzzle" means to mix.


I actually don't completely disagree with you. I think flavor text is more fun to visualize. I can read 4e powers and visualize the in-game events through my mastery of the system. If I see, "Attack 1 enemy in a Close Burst 1. On a hit, deal 2[w] damage and push all other enemies in that burst 1 square, and mark them," I can visualize that as knocking the crud out of one dude, and scaring everyone around you as a result. That's backwards from how D&D has historically done it, though, where it might read "Attack 1 enemy nearby you with a vicious and terrifying roar. All other enemies adjacent to you take a hesitant step backwards from you, and must attack you on their next turn or suffer a -2 to-hit."

It's more flowery and more readable. I am not convinced it's better for a reference work, though it's certainly better for reading.
The other advantage of the latter description is that it grounds the power in the world more, allowing it to be more or less effective based on circumstances. While people who like balance, reflavoring, or consistency dislike this approach, others enjoy the ability to reinterpret the mechanical effect to better represent the fluff (Using the default mechanical effect given as an "In most circumstances").

I'm not sure I like the new spellblock, though, if it interacts with the game in the same way it did in 3.X (Apocalypse from the Sky stands out - a spell that lets you pull artifacts from your SCP, then can only blast yourself for 10d6 damage because of how range works)

archaeo
2014-08-05, 07:50 AM
Here's a theory: it's easy to go from "natural language" to "reference language," but the reverse is not true.

Even I, a relative D&D novice, could translate a spell into its most important elements. Anybody here could. But if I was just given a bare list of the spell mechanics, or even a complicated set of spell cards, I would find it much more difficult to recreate the language the designers used, which may be relatively nuanced or include flavor and fluff I'd be interested in reading.

This obviously doesn't excuse every part of the usability issues; the PHB not including page numbers in the spell list is totally bogus, for example. And if you're a DM who relies on being able to quickly improvise encounters, spell lists in monster stat blocks are a hurdle that could slow the game down (though if you take Mearls & Co. at their word, they've promised to include all the pertinent in-combat spells in the stat block). But nonetheless, creating a spell reference document is at worst a minor clerical task; creating a list of spells in natural language is not something players or DMs should be expected to do, so it's nice that WotC did it for us.

I doubt that really cheers anybody up who finds this format obnoxious, but if I was Mike Mearls, that's how I'd justify it. WotC gave us the complicated, "natural" spells with every expectation that players will create their own references or rely on the larger community to produce them. And I expect that google doc/PDF/homebrew DM screen to show up about a day after the PHB.

SiuiS
2014-08-05, 01:11 PM
I agree with that. I have no idea how WOTC came up with this particular step backwards.

(although personally I don't mind having common spells referenced but not copy/pasted, as long as they are common spells. YMMV)

Common spells and attributes referenced is fine but it needs to be recognized that it creates a divide between those with and without system mastery. To a degree that's good, because it creates a sense of in-group; you play two or three sessions and you sart slinging vernacular and you're one of the girls! (Or boys I guess, for you estrogen-hall ended folks), but when it gets too pervasive, such that even people who know what most of the stuff does have to flip around for details? That's an issue that for lost because the regulars played so long and so deep that they, like dwarves of yore, awoke something deep in the rules that baffled and confounded all.

Doesn't help that with types, subtypes, and all those categorizations, 3rd was already trying to go modular.


obryn et al., do you think it's possible that the designers simply accepted the idea that the PHB alone wouldn't be the tool players would choose to use for spells? For players, you're expected to have a sheet containing all of your info, and they've provided tons of space to write down your spells and the pertinent information. Perhaps they just expected that, at the table, players would be using their character sheets instead of the PHB when referencing spells.

Otherwise, I'm more or less with you on this; while I found the spells a delight to read and really enjoy how the PHB's text works so far, it seems to beg for an at-the-table reference tool. Maybe Morningstar will be free and they expect everyone to use it?

It's a puzzling design decision, for sure, though it has to have been done with some principled reason. Hopefully some principled reason beyond "4e spell blocks were boring!"

Sure, but how does that affect the complaint that DMs have to flip through books constantly. "You could just check your notes!", except that doesn't fix the problem, it defers it to a different time bloc because I'm still meticulously referencing minutiae and then replicating it exactly.

A fix that requires me the DM to write out several PHBs myself is a bad fix.


Actually, I would submit that it's entirely possible that it actually is easier to read. If you make your RPG look like API documentation (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.form(v=vs.110).aspx) it's very easy to use for reference documentation. However, it's essentially impossible to use for a reference manual. The PHB has to be both a manual and a reference, and that's a very difficult position.

I'm pretty technical. I work with data and code all day. Even after 5 years of doing it, reading computer generated XML makes my eyes bleed. It's just not organized in a way that is intended for humans to read even though it's human readable. I've begun to suspect that the 4e method of endless blocks of game pieces is, to most people, like reading XML. It's like you're reading something that doesn't tell you what anything means because you're supposed to know all these definitions, and you go look up those definitions and they lead to more definitions until you get to nonsense like "A baloo is a bear".

Here's what I don't understand though.

"Monster has range 30 burst 3 (3d6 fire, reflex 15 half)" falls under this.

"Monster can cast fireball at the third level of ability with the save DC modified by it's constitution." Does this as well.

What makes reading a spell and referencing 'burst' (possibly in the same book) so much harder than reading a different book that has "fireball" and "saving throw" in different areas?

You're right, though. It goes both ways. Apocalypseworld uses keywords but they don't actually mean a damn thing. All the rules to play are on your character sheet, except the DM book is the one that explains that keywords are made up and the points don't matter. It's very frustrating, because it's a game design hiding behind beig a game design, and it's not approachable. We need to find a way to introduce these things with approachability, and I think 4e had that. You had to learn it's code but it always used that code consistently and frequently. That's better than not.

How 5e will handle things I can't say yet. We need to see it's bloat first.


I'm of multiple views myself. I absolutely love the flavor text. I'm always sad when a spell doesn't have it. Using the flavor makes using the spell feel more immersive...I'm interacting with a world that has stuff outside of my own mind going on. And of course, I can modify it if I want to, but it's there for me to modify. I don't have to make it up in a vacuum.


The other advantage of the latter description is that it grounds the power in the world more, allowing it to be more or less effective based on circumstances.

Problem: this is a bad idea for a generic toolkit system designed to let you play any character, any concept, in any world and any milieu.

If D&D were always forgotten realms or Ravenloft or dark sun, this would work. D&D is not those. D&D is everything from Maztica to Forgotten Realms to Rokugan to L5R, and it cannot have universal but clearly defined fluff across all spells without causing problems with people to were alternate-versions of spells for their specific circumstances, giving us fireball, ice burst, flame burst, incindiary burst, negative burst, etc., and that's terrible because you could have just refluffed your spells for most of those instead of making a fireball but "this one causes things to burn!", like, are you implying that the others don't?


Here's a theory: it's easy to go from "natural language" to "reference language," but the reverse is not true.

Even I, a relative D&D novice, could translate a spell into its most important elements. Anybody here could. But if I was just given a bare list of the spell mechanics, or even a complicated set of spell cards, I would find it much more difficult to recreate the language the designers used, which may be relatively nuanced or include flavor and fluff I'd be interested in reading.

I have played with a DM who used mordenkainen's Dysjunction because he thought it would permanently remove spell casting from any caster he hit with it. Granted, this guy also thought he had ancient Chinese herbs that could cure HIV because he bought some tea that said it aids elimination, but this sort of dumbness happens.

I think it's a moot point by now, which is "better". Both are good. Both are prevalent. I would like to see the rules written in both forms. It would truly unite editions, to have two different people sit down and use the same powers which have the same end-use but completely different explanations (30 ranged burst 3 xd6 reflex half, versus written out 3e fireball).

Dimers
2014-08-05, 02:55 PM
Problem: this is a bad idea for a generic toolkit system designed to let you play any character, any concept, in any world and any milieu.

For example, an immobilizing spell fluffed as entwining its target in an explosion of living roots and vines is highly problematic in Athas. If you can just make plants appear anywhere, there are many people who will want to abuse you and other people who will want you dead dead dead. Really, that flavoring of a spell is problematic anywhere -- can you use the vines to climb a wall? Do you have to have a target next to the wall if you want to do that? Does the target have to be an enemy, so as to avoid invoking the bag-of-rats problem? If you entwine someone and then cast Repel Plants, does the target move too? And so on.

Flavor has consequences. When rules and flavor are intermixed, rather than near each other but separate, problems and inconsistencies pop up really quickly. Witness the recent thread about Tasha's Hideous Laughter plus Aqueous Orb in the 3.X forum -- people were arguing for many pages about whether Tasha's forces you to inhale, because there's no clear separation between rules and flavor in the spell text.

pwykersotz
2014-08-05, 03:26 PM
For example, an immobilizing spell fluffed as entwining its target in an explosion of living roots and vines is highly problematic in Athas. If you can just make plants appear anywhere, there are many people who will want to abuse you and other people who will want you dead dead dead. Really, that flavoring of a spell is problematic anywhere -- can you use the vines to climb a wall? Do you have to have a target next to the wall if you want to do that? Does the target have to be an enemy, so as to avoid invoking the bag-of-rats problem? If you entwine someone and then cast Repel Plants, does the target move too? And so on.

Flavor has consequences. When rules and flavor are intermixed, rather than near each other but separate, problems and inconsistencies pop up really quickly. Witness the recent thread about Tasha's Hideous Laughter plus Aqueous Orb in the 3.X forum -- people were arguing for many pages about whether Tasha's forces you to inhale, because there's no clear separation between rules and flavor in the spell text.

I don't disagree that the flavor text needs to be distinct from the rules. I just want it to be there.

With regards to the generic toolkit approach to d&d, I've dealt with fluff conflicts before and I'd personally rather deal with it in some way than have no fluff for any spells. Just make it clear that the flavor text is optional and then be specific.

Sartharina
2014-08-05, 03:29 PM
For example, an immobilizing spell fluffed as entwining its target in an explosion of living roots and vines is highly problematic in Athas. If you can just make plants appear anywhere, there are many people who will want to abuse you and other people who will want you dead dead dead. Really, that flavoring of a spell is problematic anywhere -- can you use the vines to climb a wall? Do you have to have a target next to the wall if you want to do that? Does the target have to be an enemy, so as to avoid invoking the bag-of-rats problem? If you entwine someone and then cast Repel Plants, does the target move too? And so on.

Flavor has consequences. When rules and flavor are intermixed, rather than near each other but separate, problems and inconsistencies pop up really quickly. Witness the recent thread about Tasha's Hideous Laughter plus Aqueous Orb in the 3.X forum -- people were arguing for many pages about whether Tasha's forces you to inhale, because there's no clear separation between rules and flavor in the spell text.

I consider this a feature, not a bug. And yes, Hideous Laughter and Aqueous orb is suffocating.

Knaight
2014-08-05, 03:34 PM
For example, an immobilizing spell fluffed as entwining its target in an explosion of living roots and vines is highly problematic in Athas. If you can just make plants appear anywhere, there are many people who will want to abuse you and other people who will want you dead dead dead. Really, that flavoring of a spell is problematic anywhere -- can you use the vines to climb a wall? Do you have to have a target next to the wall if you want to do that? Does the target have to be an enemy, so as to avoid invoking the bag-of-rats problem? If you entwine someone and then cast Repel Plants, does the target move too? And so on.

Honestly, this doesn't seem like an issue to me. It's not "an immobilizing spell" its a spell where the effect is entwining a target in an explosion of living roots and vines, which happens to immobilize said target. It's not a directly mechanical effect at the system level, but it's a clearly defined effect in the setting. It doesn't fit in Athas, but the rest of them sound fine. Repel Plants throwing the target around sounds like a fun synergistic combination. Using the vines to climb a wall sounds like creative problem solving, and if they can only target a creature throwing some rat up and then casting the spell so the vines reach towards the rat is fine. The reason the bag-of-rats problem is even a problem is that being surrounded by rats and hitting them all somehow lets you get a bunch of strikes on an actual enemy - there's nothing like that here.

Similarly, the fireball spell's main effect is an expanding ball of flame. It happens to do damage and have a save, but it would also be really useful as something like a signal flare. Sure, it's not the intended effect, but being able to do it makes it more interesting.

1337 b4k4
2014-08-05, 03:41 PM
I consider this a feature, not a bug. And yes, Hideous Laughter and Aqueous orb is suffocating.

and


Honestly, this doesn't seem like an issue to me. It's not "an immobilizing spell" its a spell where the effect is entwining a target in an explosion of living roots and vines, which happens to immobilize said target. It's not a directly mechanical effect at the system level, but it's a clearly defined effect in the setting. It doesn't fit in Athas, but the rest of them sound fine. Repel Plants throwing the target around sounds like a fun synergistic combination. Using the vines to climb a wall sounds like creative problem solving, and if they can only target a creature throwing some rat up and then casting the spell so the vines reach towards the rat is fine. The reason the bag-of-rats problem is even a problem is that being surrounded by rats and hitting them all somehow lets you get a bunch of strikes on an actual enemy - there's nothing like that here.

Similarly, the fireball spell's main effect is an expanding ball of flame. It happens to do damage and have a save, but it would also be really useful as something like a signal flare. Sure, it's not the intended effect, but being able to do it makes it more interesting.

I second both of these. I've said before that it's a mistake to try and draw some arbitrary line between rules and fluff. We're talking about a game system made to simulate a world (and a rather specific world, despite claims to the contrary). The fluff description of spells are as important as any of the raw mechanical effects of the spell because that fluff describes how the spell (or any ability) manifests itself in the world. As Knaight pointed out, D&D doesn't have a high damage AOE elemental spell, it has a fireball spell.

Lokiare
2014-08-05, 03:58 PM
I will freely admit that one area that 4e is really poor is in the reading. 3e was not much better in most of the books honestly (in both cases I am talking about for player made material such as the complete series and not so much things like campaign settings) but 1e and 2e have books, even player option books like the complete book of bards, that are still fun to read and I do so today.

The 4e power blocks are very useful but I agree they are a turn off for reading. I essentially end up skipping most of the book unless I am creating a character that references the powers and then I only use it for that one class. In 3e I really love the Tome of Magic as it does a great job of adding flavor to some new mechanics. Oddly I also love reading Tome of Battle even if it is similar to a 4e book though I think it was the extra effort in flavoring what became the standard in 4e (with no specific flavor so it could be used by all).

The solution is to have the long descriptive block and then to have a much smaller very concise reference block like 4E had. Then you use the long block when people are trying to improvise or do something not normally done. If you are just using it as normal then use the small concise block.


Do we have any real info on how much the actual PHB will add options to the "boring" classes or is it just guesswork? If I want to chokeslam a goblin, throw it across the room into another enemy and shield-bash a third how much is the DM going to have to make up on the fly?

We have lots of articles and play test material that points to what you call 'boring' being in full swing on a lot of those classes. I don't call it 'boring' because it might offend. Instead I refer to it as choice deprived. As that's what it really is. You have 6-8 choices over 20 levels. If you want to improvise you have to get the DM to guess what DC they want to use and then you have to hope the DM resolves it in a coherent manner. They do not have a reference chart where they describe how hard specific things are or a page 42 where they have improvised damage tables.


Common spells and attributes referenced is fine but it needs to be recognized that it creates a divide between those with and without system mastery. To a degree that's good, because it creates a sense of in-group; you play two or three sessions and you sart slinging vernacular and you're one of the girls! (Or boys I guess, for you estrogen-hall ended folks), but when it gets too pervasive, such that even people who know what most of the stuff does have to flip around for details? That's an issue that for lost because the regulars played so long and so deep that they, like dwarves of yore, awoke something deep in the rules that baffled and confounded all.

Doesn't help that with types, subtypes, and all those categorizations, 3rd was already trying to go modular.



Sure, but how does that affect the complaint that DMs have to flip through books constantly. "You could just check your notes!", except that doesn't fix the problem, it defers it to a different time bloc because I'm still meticulously referencing minutiae and then replicating it exactly.

A fix that requires me the DM to write out several PHBs myself is a bad fix.



Here's what I don't understand though.

"Monster has range 30 burst 3 (3d6 fire, reflex 15 half)" falls under this.

"Monster can cast fireball at the third level of ability with the save DC modified by it's constitution." Does this as well.

What makes reading a spell and referencing 'burst' (possibly in the same book) so much harder than reading a different book that has "fireball" and "saving throw" in different areas?

You're right, though. It goes both ways. Apocalypseworld uses keywords but they don't actually mean a damn thing. All the rules to play are on your character sheet, except the DM book is the one that explains that keywords are made up and the points don't matter. It's very frustrating, because it's a game design hiding behind beig a game design, and it's not approachable. We need to find a way to introduce these things with approachability, and I think 4e had that. You had to learn it's code but it always used that code consistently and frequently. That's better than not.

How 5e will handle things I can't say yet. We need to see it's bloat first.





Problem: this is a bad idea for a generic toolkit system designed to let you play any character, any concept, in any world and any milieu.

If D&D were always forgotten realms or Ravenloft or dark sun, this would work. D&D is not those. D&D is everything from Maztica to Forgotten Realms to Rokugan to L5R, and it cannot have universal but clearly defined fluff across all spells without causing problems with people to were alternate-versions of spells for their specific circumstances, giving us fireball, ice burst, flame burst, incindiary burst, negative burst, etc., and that's terrible because you could have just refluffed your spells for most of those instead of making a fireball but "this one causes things to burn!", like, are you implying that the others don't?



I have played with a DM who used mordenkainen's Dysjunction because he thought it would permanently remove spell casting from any caster he hit with it. Granted, this guy also thought he had ancient Chinese herbs that could cure HIV because he bought some tea that said it aids elimination, but this sort of dumbness happens.

I think it's a moot point by now, which is "better". Both are good. Both are prevalent. I would like to see the rules written in both forms. It would truly unite editions, to have two different people sit down and use the same powers which have the same end-use but completely different explanations (30 ranged burst 3 xd6 reflex half, versus written out 3e fireball).

Lets not bring the real world into it or I might have to start linking stuff like this:

http://www.familyhealthnews.com/alternative-health-information/oxygen-ozone/ozone-therapy-study.html

Where illegal alternative treatments have shown promise and some Chinese Herbs actually kill viruses or increase the immune systems ability to deal with them, which in the case of HIV is all you need to keep it from becoming AIDS.

Also what one person thinks about one subject has no bearing on what they think about another. I'm sure you've never been wrong, because if you have we can just ignore anything you've ever said right?

Kurald Galain
2014-08-05, 04:11 PM
I second both of these. I've said before that it's a mistake to try and draw some arbitrary line between rules and fluff. We're talking about a game system made to simulate a world (and a rather specific world, despite claims to the contrary). The fluff description of spells are as important as any of the raw mechanical effects of the spell because that fluff describes how the spell (or any ability) manifests itself in the world. As Knaight pointed out, D&D doesn't have a high damage AOE elemental spell, it has a fireball spell.

Quoted for truth.

Lord Raziere
2014-08-05, 04:15 PM
Ah we come to the Fluff-Universality Problem: The more fluff something has, the less universal it is. The more universal something is, the less fluff it has.

People want both good fluff and universality. But to have a good universality you must ignore specifics and therefore the fluff and craft something general enough to encompass everything, with no default fluff to rule over another, as very little people will refluff if there is already a default way to fluff it, and indeed while there are some people who seem to be able work with a system with a lot of fluff in it and refluff it without batting an eyelash, not everyone can do so, and instead regard the fluff as being just as set in stone as the crunch itself. while you can argue that there is no link between fluff and crunch, there are things that say differently: namely any system with fire damage on a fireball. the damage isn't just a number, its a specific type of damage designed to model fire, and therefore limits refluffing to things which behave like fire- you can't fluff the fireball into throwing an ordinary boulder, because the boulder doesn't behave like fire. which is a definite limit on refluffing, and therefore a link between them.

GURPS approaches this problem by making so many sourcebooks on so many genres that you just have to look up the appropriate thing and use its stats, designing for every specific thing. unfortunately for some this could be too complex and take too long.

Fate approaches this problem by designing a general light framework that works for a wide range of things that you just apply the fluff on top of it. however for some, this may be too abstract and not detailed enough to their liking.

M&M I personally like, but I do acknowledge that it has trouble with portraying lower powered people, which is fine for me because I don't really care for lower powered characters, but others do.

while any game with an established fluff is too focused on that specific world, and I don't have the time or the mental flexibility to replace one fluff with another, or modify the rules of that specific world to do something else- it just feels wrong to me to do that, personally. I can't explain it, but it just feels wrong to play something default-fluffed as a fireball as not a fireball, perhaps because I already think of it as a fireball and can't think of it as something not a fireball?

the point is that the Fluff-Universality Problem is something all RPG's have to deal with some way, either by going towards fluff and forgetting universality, going to universality and encouraging people to make their own fluff, or trying to establish a very general world in which there is some fluff-grounding but not enough to shut out character concepts or making people unable to refluff powers. or make multiple possible worlds to put them in.

the question of course to all this is: how do we get both universality and good fluff? is every roleplayer really capable of making a character from a universal system with no fluff? does a well-built world matter more than good flexible mechanics? these are just a few questions this problem raises.

However, there is a method I haven't yet mentioned: The adaptation method of universality. D20, Fate and Apocalypse World uses this method, keeping the core system mostly the same but putting it in another setting, altering them a little to accommodate for the changes and then putting in the fluff, which seems to be a good way to do such a thing: it provides a good universal frame but without treating everything as the same.

thoughts anyone?

1337 b4k4
2014-08-05, 04:30 PM
thoughts anyone?

I fully admit this may be entirely bias from my particular style of learning, but I am 100% behind the "more fluff, less universality" school of thought. I find it a thousand times easier to take an existing world and build by example when I want something different than I do to take raw materials a build an entire world out of it. That is to say, give me a thousand pre-built lego sets and let me remix them to my heart's content rather than giving me a giant box of unassembled lego.

Tholomyes
2014-08-05, 04:45 PM
I fully admit this may be entirely bias from my particular style of learning, but I am 100% behind the "more fluff, less universality" school of thought. I find it a thousand times easier to take an existing world and build by example when I want something different than I do to take raw materials a build an entire world out of it. That is to say, give me a thousand pre-built lego sets and let me remix them to my heart's content rather than giving me a giant box of unassembled lego.On the other hand, I'm exactly the opposite. I'd rather have mechanics that can be refluffed as need be, rather than fluff having a huge role. In the lego example, I was always the kid who built the lego the way it was described in the booklet, just to see what they wanted me to do with it, but then I'd just add them to my huge box of legos and see what I could build with all the cool bricks I had.

Ideally, D&D should handle both, but it's unrealistic for D&D to do that. In such a case, I'd rather D&D treated the basic fluff like the booklet; they give all the pieces to use the mechanics like the basic fluff allows, but the mechanics aren't beholden to the fluff, and are written in a way that doesn't reference the fluff, unless you decide to use it that way. Otherwise, fireball is just mechanically described as an X foot range, Y foot burst that deals Z damage, or Entangle is just mechanically described as a restraint against all characters in a certain area and Difficult terrain against anyone who tries to move through there.

Sartharina
2014-08-05, 05:22 PM
Mechanics should be beholden to the fluff - but the mechanics should be mutable. Sure, Entangling Roots is ultimately an immobilizing spell - but you can re-work that spell to have different trappings than Entangling Roots - and those different trappings will have different ancillary effects than the trappings of Entangling Roots.

pwykersotz
2014-08-05, 05:31 PM
Why not both?

No seriously, why not have both detailed fluff and universal adaptation? I suppose it makes for a longer statblock, but it's not hard to do.


Gate
9th-level conjuration

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a diamond worth at least 5000gp)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

You wave your hands and invoke words that crackle through the air like electricity. As you mimic a ripping motion, a hole in the universe opens before you. Grey astral mist leaks through, glistening around the rim of the doorway to another place you have just opened. An ominous thrumming echoes across the dimensions, causing your very soul to shiver.

You conjure a portal linking an unoccupied space...etc...

But what if I'm an undead and have no soul? What if there is no astral plane in my game? Why can't it look like an ordinary door instead of a portal? Well, you can change those things without any trouble, because the fluff is listed in a lovely italics block up top as a suggestion, followed by a detailed description of the important mechanics.

It gives you a place to start from, and I think that's valuable. But at the same time, those who aren't inclined to use the fluff can just skip straight to the crunchy bits with no trouble. So once again, why not both?

Tholomyes
2014-08-05, 05:49 PM
But at the same time, those who aren't inclined to use the fluff can just skip straight to the crunchy bits with no trouble. So once again, why not both?

The issue is that the crunchy bits aren't easily accessable due to WotC's attempt at "natural language" (which is written around the base fluff) often at the expense of clarity. Were WotC to publish a book of spells stripped down to their crunchy bits, I'd prefer that, but otherwise, it's not that simple.

pwykersotz
2014-08-05, 06:04 PM
The issue is that the crunchy bits aren't easily accessable due to WotC's attempt at "natural language" (which is written around the base fluff) often at the expense of clarity. Were WotC to publish a book of spells stripped down to their crunchy bits, I'd prefer that, but otherwise, it's not that simple.

I acknowledge that the desire to use natural language complicated it, but do you agree that my method above works for you in a vacuum? My point was mostly that fluff and crunch CAN coexist and not get in each others way, not so much that 5e does it well.

Tholomyes
2014-08-05, 06:08 PM
I acknowledge that the desire to use natural language complicated it, but do you agree that my method above works for you in a vacuum? My point was mostly that fluff and crunch CAN coexist and not get in each others way, not so much that 5e does it well.I can agree with it in a vacuum (though, still I hold that my personal favorite systems do not enforce flavor hardly at all, by virtue of point buy, though I accept that D&D is a different beast). It's just that in order for fluff and crunch to coexist, I feel they should not be intertwined much, and instead the fluff parts should be, for the most part, pure fluff, and the crunch parts should be, for the most part, pure crunch.

Sartharina
2014-08-05, 06:14 PM
I acknowledge that the desire to use natural language complicated it, but do you agree that my method above works for you in a vacuum? My point was mostly that fluff and crunch CAN coexist and not get in each others way, not so much that 5e does it well.
I disagree, because it completely marginalizes what you call the 'fluff', and explicitly calls it out as disposable.

And, that's not fluff in the description. Fluff is trappings - Vines covering a wall, a rift opening with a gate (What happens if you throw someone onto that proto-rift with a readied action?), etc. Refluffing trappings should allow for adjusting mechanics as well. Pro-fluff people want stronger integration of what's happening in the world and the end result, not weaker integration. Some people see grease merely as a "Zone of free tripping" (Which can be fluffed as any sort of thing - from an unsteady ground to bunches of little hands flying around pulling on people's ankles). Others see it as "A slick covering", which means that while normal people are just falling on their ass in it, creative users of the spell can use it to lubricate things, and creative defenders can use ways to negate the slickeriness.

pwykersotz
2014-08-05, 06:25 PM
I disagree, because it completely marginalizes what you call the 'fluff', and explicitly calls it out as disposable.

And, that's not fluff in the description. Fluff is trappings - Vines covering a wall, a rift opening with a gate (What happens if you throw someone onto that proto-rift with a readied action?), etc. Refluffing trappings should allow for adjusting mechanics as well. Pro-fluff people want stronger integration of what's happening in the world and the end result, not weaker integration. Some people see grease merely as a "Zone of free tripping" (Which can be fluffed as any sort of thing - from an unsteady ground to bunches of little hands flying around pulling on people's ankles). Others see it as "A slick covering", which means that while normal people are just falling on their ass in it, creative users of the spell can use it to lubricate things, and creative defenders can use ways to negate the slickeriness.

I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree that disposable fluff cannot have mechanical interaction. Given the fluff I wrote for gate above, using a jar to capture the astral mist or the ominous noise alerting foes works quite well. I think it would be a mistake to eliminate logical consequences of spells, but I think it's important for the DM to be able to assert "that's not how that works in my world" with a minimum of fuss and to not have a million subtly different spells to entangle someone.

Lord Raziere
2014-08-05, 06:40 PM
Why not both?

No seriously, why not have both detailed fluff and universal adaptation? I suppose it makes for a longer statblock, but it's not hard to do.


well here is the thing.

if you want to design a universal system for everyone, you can't let yourself by biased to one source. you can't let one kind of fluff dominate, because once you do that, its not universal anymore. if you say design a universal system, but make the default setting a steampunk world, trying to adapt it to say maybe, a world set in antiquity or in space is going to be harder, since its designed for the steampunk world

and since you can't do that, you can't write any default fluff for the system, because fluff inherently limits and narrows the scope of the possibilities. the more detailed and beautiful the fluff, the more it limits and closes off what other possibilities can be used instead. unless you come up with a setting where literally everything is possible, and describe its melange of endless possibility well, your going to either have to make the system without any fluff whatsoever- except maybe as example stuff- or your going to have to choose a default setting and acknowledge that its a little less universal.

archaeo
2014-08-05, 06:46 PM
fluff inherently limits and narrows the scope of the possibilities. the more detailed and beautiful the fluff, the more it limits and closes off what other possibilities can be used instead.

I don't think this is necessarily incorrect, but it does feel misleading to me. 5e certainly has "stronger" fluff than other games, inasmuch as it has classes, spells, and mechanics that seem to play into a certain kind of fantasy world. But refluffing doesn't strike me as a deeply difficult thing in 5e.

If you think it is, could you explain why, using examples? This isn't like, me snarkily attacking anyone; I'm legitimately curious. I'm a total novice when it comes to TRPGs for the most part, but reading through Basic I saw how I could refluff things for a house setting I'll put together if I ever find a group. It didn't seem difficult at all.

Sartharina
2014-08-05, 06:46 PM
well here is the thing.

if you want to design a universal system for everyone, you can't let yourself by biased to one source. you can't let one kind of fluff dominate, because once you do that, its not universal anymore. if you say design a universal system, but make the default setting a steampunk world, trying to adapt it to say maybe, a world set in antiquity or in space is going to be harder, since its designed for the steampunk world

and since you can't do that, you can't write any default fluff for the system, because fluff inherently limits and narrows the scope of the possibilities. the more detailed and beautiful the fluff, the more it limits and closes off what other possibilities can be used instead. unless you come up with a setting where literally everything is possible, and describe its melange of endless possibility well, your going to either have to make the system without any fluff whatsoever- except maybe as example stuff- or your going to have to choose a default setting and acknowledge that its a little less universal.

Well, trappings can also expand the scope of possibilities. "Range 60 Burst 4 5d6 Damage" doesn't have the same range of utility that you can get out of a small bead of fire that violently conflagrates after traveling a specific distance.

Knaight
2014-08-05, 06:54 PM
Well, trappings can also expand the scope of possibilities. "Range 60 Burst 4 5d6 Damage" doesn't have the same range of utility that you can get out of a small bead of fire that violently conflagrates after traveling a specific distance.

Exactly. My example for a signal flare alone only fits within one of those, and it's hardly comprehensive.

As for refluffing, it does subtly change the ways things work. It's essentially a class of house-ruling that's usually pretty easy to do as it doesn't particularly rely on system-specific numerical sense. Maybe your entangling spell is a set of transparent barriers that push back against anything inside them - that doesn't have the applicability of vines for climbing, but it does have other uses, such as containing explosives, or stopping a spring of water, or preventing a very small geyser from opening (though they tend to have strength requirements in the mechanical side, and the force of a sizable geyser is more than enough to blow right through).

I can also think of spell systems which do have multiple entangling spells, where they're different enough that it works. Nature mages do the vine entangle, earth mages turn the ground soft beneath their target to stick them into the muck until they break free. Even in combat there are subtle differences (a hovering target or even a low flying target might be entangled by vines, softening the ground is going to accomplish jack-all), but the utility is completely different, where the earth spell is an excellent way to quickly hide an object, or undermine a wall, or whatever else.

Tholomyes
2014-08-05, 06:58 PM
well here is the thing.

if you want to design a universal system for everyone, you can't let yourself by biased to one source. you can't let one kind of fluff dominate, because once you do that, its not universal anymore. if you say design a universal system, but make the default setting a steampunk world, trying to adapt it to say maybe, a world set in antiquity or in space is going to be harder, since its designed for the steampunk world

and since you can't do that, you can't write any default fluff for the system, because fluff inherently limits and narrows the scope of the possibilities. the more detailed and beautiful the fluff, the more it limits and closes off what other possibilities can be used instead. unless you come up with a setting where literally everything is possible, and describe its melange of endless possibility well, your going to either have to make the system without any fluff whatsoever- except maybe as example stuff- or your going to have to choose a default setting and acknowledge that its a little less universal.I agree somewhat, though I'm not sure I agree it's as Black and white as you think.

For example, the difference between:

Entangle
1st level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: X feet
Components: Stuff
Duration: 1 minute (or concentration, or what have you)

Choose a point within range that you can see. Area within Y feet of that point is considered difficult terrain. In addition all creatures within that area must make a Str saving throw or be restrained. Any creature who fails this save may make a saving throw at the end of her turn to end this effect early.

and

Entangle
Grasping Vines and roots lash out, gripping the at the legs of all within an area. (or, you know, some type of description that wasn't written in a minute)
1st level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: X feet
Components: Stuff
Duration: 1 minute (or concentration, or what have you)

Choose a point within range that you can see. Area within Y feet of that point is considered difficult terrain. In addition all creatures within that area must make a Str saving throw or be restrained. Any creature who fails this save may make a saving throw at the end of her turn to end this effect early.

is just that one has flavor text added below the name of the spell. As long as the rules make it clear that the base flavor isn't immutable, all it does is provide a base flavor to those who don't want to reflavor, while allowing those who do want to reflavor to do so freely.

Lord Raziere
2014-08-05, 06:59 PM
Well, trappings can also expand the scope of possibilities. "Range 60 Burst 4 5d6 Damage" doesn't have the same range of utility that you can get out of a small bead of fire that violently conflagrates after traveling a specific distance.

Yes but unless your talking about being harder to detect- which it wouldn't be, because a little candle is just as noticeable as a big flame, I don't see what possibilities that it gives.

and it closes off the possibility of just making lava burst out of the ground to damage them instead that attack never specified that there HAD to be a ball of flame at all, just that damage had to be inflicted 60 feet away at Burst 4. or lightning striking them all from above since you didn't specify whether it was fire damage, and even then lightning is plasma, it burns anyway so if we are still talking fire and heat, it still counts.

pwykersotz
2014-08-05, 08:54 PM
well here is the thing.

if you want to design a universal system for everyone, you can't let yourself by biased to one source. you can't let one kind of fluff dominate, because once you do that, its not universal anymore. if you say design a universal system, but make the default setting a steampunk world, trying to adapt it to say maybe, a world set in antiquity or in space is going to be harder, since its designed for the steampunk world

and since you can't do that, you can't write any default fluff for the system, because fluff inherently limits and narrows the scope of the possibilities. the more detailed and beautiful the fluff, the more it limits and closes off what other possibilities can be used instead. unless you come up with a setting where literally everything is possible, and describe its melange of endless possibility well, your going to either have to make the system without any fluff whatsoever- except maybe as example stuff- or your going to have to choose a default setting and acknowledge that its a little less universal.

I get what you're saying here, and I agree insofar as you've taken the argument. I wasn't really talking about the whole system being completely universal though. If it were in a Steampunk world, there might be a spell called "Summon Clockwork Mender" or "Repair Cog" and that would be fine. But the individual flavor text on a spell can both open avenues for imagination and give players and GM's more to grab onto while also having a mechanically concise section so you know what the spell was designed at its core to do and refluff without significant balance problems.

1337 b4k4
2014-08-05, 09:45 PM
I agree somewhat, though I'm not sure I agree it's as Black and white as you think.

For example, the difference between:

Entangle
1st level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: X feet
Components: Stuff
Duration: 1 minute (or concentration, or what have you)

Choose a point within range that you can see. Area within Y feet of that point is considered difficult terrain. In addition all creatures within that area must make a Str saving throw or be restrained. Any creature who fails this save may make a saving throw at the end of her turn to end this effect early.

and

Entangle
Grasping Vines and roots lash out, gripping the at the legs of all within an area. (or, you know, some type of description that wasn't written in a minute)
1st level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: X feet
Components: Stuff
Duration: 1 minute (or concentration, or what have you)

Choose a point within range that you can see. Area within Y feet of that point is considered difficult terrain. In addition all creatures within that area must make a Str saving throw or be restrained. Any creature who fails this save may make a saving throw at the end of her turn to end this effect early.

is just that one has flavor text added below the name of the spell. As long as the rules make it clear that the base flavor isn't immutable, all it does is provide a base flavor to those who don't want to reflavor, while allowing those who do want to reflavor to do so freely.

It's worth noting this is exactly what 4e tried to do with their powers, and that contributed to the sense of "dryness" when reading the book.

Tholomyes
2014-08-05, 10:21 PM
It's worth noting this is exactly what 4e tried to do with their powers, and that contributed to the sense of "dryness" when reading the book.Eh, never personally felt the books read all that dry. Sure, reading power blocks wasn't the most interesting thing, but to me, it was no worse than reading through spells, and the layout meant that I was able to get all the relevant mechanic information quicker. While I don't particularly like 4e, and will argue that much of it's layout and power paradigm are flawed, I don't think those flaws are the way the powers separate mechanics and flavor, in the descriptions.

Dimers
2014-08-05, 10:51 PM
I guess what I dislike is the mixing of crunch and fluff without the book making clear whether "only the glossary keywords count here" or "everything in the spell is totally true insofar as the DM and local environment allow." AD&D and 3.5 never said one way or the other. 4e separated the two aspects completely, and then made the fluff worthless by writing it so poorly when it was included at all. (IMO there's no flavor in the default fluff for powers, and believe me, I'm no 4e hater saying that.)

I'd prefer a game that said "all of these potentially contradictory things are true" over one that doesn't speak on the topic at all. I lean even more toward separate crunch, Bring Your Own Flavor style, but only because that already clarifies what an ability or trait can do. Either way, I want to know, not to have it up-in-the-air.

1337 b4k4
2014-08-05, 11:09 PM
"everything in the spell is totally true insofar as the DM and local environment allow."

For what it's worth, I always assume this whenever reading rule books. I always figure if they didn't intend for it to be a rule, it wouldn't be in the rule book.

MeeposFire
2014-08-06, 12:21 AM
Eh, never personally felt the books read all that dry. Sure, reading power blocks wasn't the most interesting thing, but to me, it was no worse than reading through spells, and the layout meant that I was able to get all the relevant mechanic information quicker. While I don't particularly like 4e, and will argue that much of it's layout and power paradigm are flawed, I don't think those flaws are the way the powers separate mechanics and flavor, in the descriptions.

The "problem" with many 4e books is that so much of the book reads like a spell compendium, book of feats, or similar. In 3e the Spell Compendium is certainly a useful book but it is not really a fun one to read. 4e books are better than that but they do have a large section that reads like that which dilutes their reading value a bit.

Tholomyes
2014-08-06, 12:30 AM
The "problem" with many 4e books is that so much of the book reads like a spell compendium, book of feats, or similar. In 3e the Spell Compendium is certainly a useful book but it is not really a fun one to read. 4e books are better than that but they do have a large section that reads like that which dilutes their reading value a bit.YMMV, I guess. I've never found any PHB all that "fun to read," so when comparing PHBs, I generally prefer the one that gives the information in an easy to parse manner.

Dimers
2014-08-06, 01:49 AM
YMMV, I guess. I've never found any PHB all that "fun to read," so when comparing PHBs, I generally prefer the one that gives the information in an easy to parse manner.

The players' books for GURPS are pretty fun to read. The ones for a lot of White Wolf games are great -- heck, Wraith and Mage were both at least a little life-changing for me. The Shadowrun players' books vary widely in writing quality but I look forward to their vignettes and examples and a lot of the character interjections in the splats. For D&D PHBs, though, I pretty much agree ... not one yet has really drawn me in and made me feel like it was something more than rules.

I can easily imagine the 5e PHB being a fun read, though from what I've seen of the flavor writing in this edition so far, I wouldn't expect it. Too generic, too much aimed at people new to fantasy RP.

SiuiS
2014-08-06, 02:02 AM
For example, an immobilizing spell fluffed as entwining its target in an explosion of living roots and vines is highly problematic in Athas. If you can just make plants appear anywhere, there are many people who will want to abuse you and other people who will want you dead dead dead. Really, that flavoring of a spell is problematic anywhere -- can you use the vines to climb a wall? Do you have to have a target next to the wall if you want to do that? Does the target have to be an enemy, so as to avoid invoking the bag-of-rats problem? If you entwine someone and then cast Repel Plants, does the target move too? And so on.

Flavor has consequences. When rules and flavor are intermixed, rather than near each other but separate, problems and inconsistencies pop up really quickly. Witness the recent thread about Tasha's Hideous Laughter plus Aqueous Orb in the 3.X forum -- people were arguing for many pages about whether Tasha's forces you to inhale, because there's no clear separation between rules and flavor in the spell text.

I would rather they not make a game that is designed mechanically as a toolkit but written, played, sold, and understood as a specific campaign, myself. Both approaches are good. Trying to have your cake and eat it too is not.


and



I second both of these. I've said before that it's a mistake to try and draw some arbitrary line between rules and fluff. We're talking about a game system made to simulate a world (and a rather specific world, despite claims to the contrary). The fluff description of spells are as important as any of the raw mechanical effects of the spell because that fluff describes how the spell (or any ability) manifests itself in the world. As Knaight pointed out, D&D doesn't have a high damage AOE elemental spell, it has a fireball spell.

Yes, but this causes needless conflict, see below.



Also what one person thinks about one subject has no bearing on what they think about another. I'm sure you've never been wrong, because if you have we can just ignore anything you've ever said right?

Not comparable. It depends on what I'm wrong about, how I am wrong about it, and how intelligently it was handled. There's a difference between making a mistake about facts from memory, say, and thinking that a commercially available mass produced tea is just not put into medicine because absolutely no reason.

An example isn't important for the example, it's important for what it illustrates. In this case, human capacity for stupidity. If you want tog et hung up on who said what to who for how many jellybeans instead of taking the useful parts, go ahead. It clears room for discussion.


I fully admit this may be entirely bias from my particular style of learning, but I am 100% behind the "more fluff, less universality" school of thought. I find it a thousand times easier to take an existing world and build by example when I want something different than I do to take raw materials a build an entire world out of it. That is to say, give me a thousand pre-built lego sets and let me remix them to my heart's content rather than giving me a giant box of unassembled lego.

Less universailyt is probably best in D&D.


Why not both?

No seriously, why not have both detailed fluff and universal adaptation? I suppose it makes for a longer statblock, but it's not hard to do.



But what if I'm an undead and have no soul? What if there is no astral plane in my game? Why can't it look like an ordinary door instead of a portal? Well, you can change those things without any trouble, because the fluff is listed in a lovely italics block up top as a suggestion, followed by a detailed description of the important mechanics.

It gives you a place to start from, and I think that's valuable. But at the same time, those who aren't inclined to use the fluff can just skip straight to the crunchy bits with no trouble. So once again, why not both?

But what happens when one p[layer has a shimmering portal, another has a physical door, and someone starts reaping loads of mechanical benefits from their physical door fluff? They can stand on the door jab, use it as an impromptu shield by closing the door, disguise their magic as regular architecture, and the person who took the spell as default is SOL?

The person who uses binding vines is able to get through mine-shafts and find water in the desert and the guy whop shoots iron bands or electric coils is screwed because?

The player who shoots fireworks is caught by guards while the player who shoots a silent (well, "silent") fireball is screwed because?

It is usually recognized that these kinds of things boil down very quickly into GM favoritism, and we try to (as a ruleset) avoid that. If you want to call it a feature, that's cool (I do this stuff often!), but then you'll have a lot of people who come home after their workweek and just want to play a game and don't want to have to haggle over every damn spell detail to see what powers are gained.

Lord Raziere
2014-08-06, 02:50 AM
I don't think this is necessarily incorrect, but it does feel misleading to me. 5e certainly has "stronger" fluff than other games, inasmuch as it has classes, spells, and mechanics that seem to play into a certain kind of fantasy world. But refluffing doesn't strike me as a deeply difficult thing in 5e.

If you think it is, could you explain why, using examples? This isn't like, me snarkily attacking anyone; I'm legitimately curious. I'm a total novice when it comes to TRPGs for the most part, but reading through Basic I saw how I could refluff things for a house setting I'll put together if I ever find a group. It didn't seem difficult at all.

yes, but none of the refluffing is ever a 1:1 translation. or at least not all the time.

Sure you can hold a crossbow like a gun, and refluff it to be a gun, but it won't mechanically behave like one, it will still be behaving like a crossbow.

sure you can refluff a fireball into a grenade, but the grenade won't be behaving like a grenade, because the grenade, you can pull the pin, leave it there and thus set an impromptu trap for anyone coming after you, or throw it through a door. a fireball however is, is a big raging ball of fire that can't be set as a trap or thrown through the door because its too wide and wasn't mechanically designed to do so.

sure you can try refluffing a wizard's spell into a ray gun, but what happens when the ray gun is slapped out of your hand? with a wizard that can't happen because that just comes out of your hands, no need for an item, but the inventor guy your playing can't shoot without the ray gun. so either somehow the inventor can suddenly something impossible, or somehow the enemy can't slap the ray gun out of his hand. (this is mitigated somewhat by say, a cybernetic arm, but then the question becomes how he is fitting so many devices in one arm? and how doesn't he gain greater strength because of said arm?)

and then there are spells that work purely on magical principles that don't make sense to say technological ones. Adjuration can be described as forcefields or nanorobotic shields, Conjuration and Necromancy by teleporting in robots, Evocation as various firearms, Transmutation as more nanorobot shenanigans, Illusions as holograms, but you can't fluff Enchantment as hacking unless all the brains involved are technological- unless your nanorobotics are fast....but what about Divination? it sees things that technology can't do itself. and thus this all assumes a very futuristic setting. (Hrm, this was supposed to demonstrate how different technology can be from magic, but my own creativity ended up shooting myself in the foot, time to look for a better example)

but the point is that you can't just refluff a wizard as say, an inventor because all his stuff is more external and contain in all these little devices, not one spell book. there is a clear difference between one and the other, that affects how in the game they work. you can't smash the abstract magical spell with a hammer.

and then there is the problem of trying to refluff one spell as another similar spell with a different element. the element behaves differently than the first one. a fireball behaves differently from an acidball. which behaves differently from a necroball and so on- they wouldn't be different elements and kinds of energy if they didn't have different properties and behaviors.

and then there is the heavy armor fighter, which doesn't make sense in any place other than medieval fantasy. warriors of antiquity are different from medieval fighters, who are different from colonial soldiers, who are different from modern soldiers. maybe futuristic ones can have power-suit wearing guys, who knows? the barbarian doesn't fare much better, only making sense in Antiquity as well. (The rogue however seems to be an eternal archetype no matter where you put them.)

I'm sure there are more examples but those are the ones I can think of right now. but I'm sure you can see why refluffing can only go so far.

pwykersotz
2014-08-06, 09:37 AM
But what happens when one p[layer has a shimmering portal, another has a physical door, and someone starts reaping loads of mechanical benefits from their physical door fluff? They can stand on the door jab, use it as an impromptu shield by closing the door, disguise their magic as regular architecture, and the person who took the spell as default is SOL?

The person who uses binding vines is able to get through mine-shafts and find water in the desert and the guy whop shoots iron bands or electric coils is screwed because?

The player who shoots fireworks is caught by guards while the player who shoots a silent (well, "silent") fireball is screwed because?

It is usually recognized that these kinds of things boil down very quickly into GM favoritism, and we try to (as a ruleset) avoid that. If you want to call it a feature, that's cool (I do this stuff often!), but then you'll have a lot of people who come home after their workweek and just want to play a game and don't want to have to haggle over every damn spell detail to see what powers are gained.

My point was never really to advocate flexible fluff between characters. My point was made to address that some settings don't actually support certain spells. That the flavor text of the spell should be the default, and that on a case-by-case basis, the player and GM can work out a different way for it to happen. A certain amount of consistency should generally be used throughout campaigns. I can see I wasn't completely clear earlier though, sorry about that. :smallredface:

Kurald Galain
2014-08-06, 10:17 AM
Entangle
Grasping Vines and roots lash out, gripping the at the legs of all within an area. (or, you know, some type of description that wasn't written in a minute)
1st level Conjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: X feet
Components: Stuff
Duration: 1 minute (or concentration, or what have you)

Choose a point within range that you can see. Area within Y feet of that point is considered difficult terrain. In addition all creatures within that area must make a Str saving throw or be restrained. Any creature who fails this save may make a saving throw at the end of her turn to end this effect early.

The issue is this: think of any situation where the flavor becomes contradictory, for example if you're trying to restrain a fire elemental or a ghost, or if you're in an area that doesn't have vines and roots, such as the elemental plane of air.

At this point, most 4E players will ignore the flavor text and have the difficult terrain and strength saves happen anyway; whereas most 3E players will conclude that either the spell has a different effect or simply doesn't work in this case. There's nothing wrong with either approach, but the two just aren't compatible.

obryn
2014-08-06, 11:57 AM
I've been thinking on this for a few days. Like I said, I totally get the opinion that "fireball is a fireball, and damage is incidental" or that the trappings of a spell are the real spell.

I still tend to prefer keeping the mechanics first, and it's mostly not because of magical effects. It's because of the mundane ones.

D&D players have a long and storied history of interjecting "realism" into places where it might not belong. And, more often than not, it's non-magical effects that bear the brunt of this. The "why?!" is easy enough - magic is magic, while non-magic is not.

So when we look at a game where non-magical folks have a wide variety of cool tricks - like 4e - going "flavor-first" gets really risky. The iconic Fighter Encounter 7, Come and Get It, is a shining example of this; it (now) requires an attack vs. Will (which = save vs. will in 3e parlance) and draws enemies to you on a hit. I've heard many (many, many) a time about how unrealistic it is that (say) an evil wizard would ever fall for a trick like that, even if you do beat his Will defense. Likewise, something like Inspiring Word could run into similar issues ("what do you mean you healed him? didn't i just say he got stabbed by a big spear?!") On the 5e end, Battlemaster Fighters get an ability to Frighten their enemies per the Alpha ("naah, you're 8th level and he's 16th, no way he'd ever be scared of you, i don't care what the dice say").

This isn't to say that magic is immune to this; we've seen some examples here. But there's much less of an instinctive reaction to, say, prevent a Fireball from being cast while you're in the Arctic. Or for Charm Monster to fail because of how angry a troll is. Or for magical healing to fail because patching up wounds that fast is unrealistic and what about shock anyway?

So that's pretty much where I am with all this. I can see the counter-argument - and remember, I'm a huge fan of oldschool D&D, too - but when it comes right down to it, I put "competent non-magical characters" as a major goal of mine for a new edition of D&D, and a focus on flavor-first seems to draw away from that.

Kurald Galain
2014-08-06, 12:48 PM
This isn't to say that magic is immune to this; we've seen some examples here. But there's much less of an instinctive reaction to, say, prevent a Fireball from being cast while you're in the Arctic. Or for Charm Monster to fail because of how angry a troll is. Or for magical healing to fail because patching up wounds that fast is unrealistic and what about shock anyway?

I don't see this a a magic/non-magic divide at all. If we look at magical powers, then it's very easy to find examples with contradictory fluff, such as

Any fire spell when cast underwater or in a vacuum
Any mental power that targets AC or Reflex, or conversely any elemental power that targets Will
Warlocks can planeshift an enemy to hell... but they must planeshift him back immediately afterwards
Swordmages can teleport to an enemy... but only if that enemy is currently attacking an ally
Bigby's Clenched Fist can move enemies around... but only if you move them right back to where they came from


So also for casters there's a clear difference between 3E's approach of writing a fluff effect (and if that means that the crunch sometimes does nothing, that's ok) or 4E's approach of writing a crunch effect (and if that means that the fluff sometimes doesn't make sense, that's ok). Chocolate, meet Strawberry.

MeeposFire
2014-08-06, 05:31 PM
YMMV, I guess. I've never found any PHB all that "fun to read," so when comparing PHBs, I generally prefer the one that gives the information in an easy to parse manner.

Yes PHB are not really fun to read I would agree I was actually thinking more of the splat books in every edition. For example Complete Arcane in 3e is not a particularly good read but I think Tome of Magic is much better. In 4e most of the earlier (oddly more popular books) are not such great reads since they are very similar to the PHB whereas the much later books tended to have more non-mechanical parts written in so as to make them more interesting (though some call it "padding"). If you look at AD&D most of the books are pretty good reads even if the mechanics may be very small (Complete book of Thieves) or poorly written (Complete Handbook for Psionics).

Tholomyes
2014-08-06, 08:35 PM
The issue is this: think of any situation where the flavor becomes contradictory, for example if you're trying to restrain a fire elemental or a ghost, or if you're in an area that doesn't have vines and roots, such as the elemental plane of air.

At this point, most 4E players will ignore the flavor text and have the difficult terrain and strength saves happen anyway; whereas most 3E players will conclude that either the spell has a different effect or simply doesn't work in this case. There's nothing wrong with either approach, but the two just aren't compatible.I'm not sure that they're incompatible, from a spell-block perspective, though. All it takes is a DM to say that the base fluff is the fluff, and that the fluff will dictate bonuses and penalties (or whether it can even be used). This is true for both 4e style and 3e style, it's just it's much easier to parse spell blocks and abilities when mechanics and flavor are separated, which also makes it easier to refluff, if your group is ok with that.

Lokiare
2014-08-06, 09:30 PM
Not comparable. It depends on what I'm wrong about, how I am wrong about it, and how intelligently it was handled. There's a difference between making a mistake about facts from memory, say, and thinking that a commercially available mass produced tea is just not put into medicine because absolutely no reason.

An example isn't important for the example, it's important for what it illustrates. In this case, human capacity for stupidity. If you want tog et hung up on who said what to who for how many jellybeans instead of taking the useful parts, go ahead. It clears room for discussion.

Actually it doesn't matter. The two don't have anything in common. Because I know you posted in the logic thread I'll show you what you are doing when you do that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Basically what you are saying is because that person was wrong once, they are always wrong. At best you should inspect what that person says and verify its truth independently. You should not dismiss it out of hand.

SiuiS
2014-08-07, 12:46 AM
My point was never really to advocate flexible fluff between characters. My point was made to address that some settings don't actually support certain spells. That the flavor text of the spell should be the default, and that on a case-by-case basis, the player and GM can work out a different way for it to happen. A certain amount of consistency should generally be used throughout campaigns. I can see I wasn't completely clear earlier though, sorry about that. :smallredface:

Oh, okay then.


Actually it doesn't matter. The two don't have anything in common. Because I know you posted in the logic thread I'll show you what you are doing when you do that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Basically what you are saying is because that person was wrong once, they are always wrong. At best you should inspect what that person says and verify its truth independently. You should not dismiss it out of hand.

No, what I am saying is that person is stupid. They are an example of stupid people in general, and just as they are one example of human stupid in action, I can provide one example of their personal stupid in action. I can provide many more.

Because logic is useless without emotional intelligence. What I was trying to say was clear, even if you personally don't feel the intention and the action align enough. We are not computers. We are not bound to technicalities. I am not going to say that technically I must have said and meant something different and be stuck to it. I've clarified what was going on, and the clarification should be taken into account if you are interested in the point of the original statement at all.

There are fun experiments to be had by playing around with words like this, but now is not the time. We are – or rather, I am – talking about a person who missed what a message was supposed to convey by taking a technically acceptable read and discounting how plausible that read was. Telling me that I said something else because it's technically a valid read but doesn't flow from the conversation at all is the same thing.

Envyus
2014-08-07, 01:04 AM
At best you should inspect what that person says and verify its truth independently. You should not dismiss it out of hand.

Hi Pot my name is Kettle

Kurald Galain
2014-08-07, 04:23 PM
I'm not sure that they're incompatible, from a spell-block perspective, though. All it takes is a DM to say that the base fluff is the fluff, and that the fluff will dictate bonuses and penalties (or whether it can even be used). This is true for both 4e style and 3e style, it's just it's much easier to parse spell blocks and abilities when mechanics and flavor are separated, which also makes it easier to refluff, if your group is ok with that.

I don't think you've understood what I wrote in my last post. No, it is not true in 4E that "the fluff dictates bonuses and penalties or whether it can even be used" (although 3E does). And no, 3E does not run on the principle that everything can be refluffed (although 4E does).

Tholomyes
2014-08-07, 05:18 PM
I don't think you've understood what I wrote in my last post. No, it is not true in 4E that "the fluff dictates bonuses and penalties or whether it can even be used" (although 3E does). And no, 3E does not run on the principle that everything can be refluffed (although 4E does).Except a DM could easily say, in 4e that you can't use a certain power or ability on a certain enemy or in a certain area, based on rule 0. Likewise, a DM can allow refluffing in 3e, also via rule 0. The rules can't do anything to stop either of those from happening.

Lokiare
2014-08-07, 05:26 PM
No, what I am saying is that person is stupid. They are an example of stupid people in general, and just as they are one example of human stupid in action, I can provide one example of their personal stupid in action. I can provide many more.

Because logic is useless without emotional intelligence. What I was trying to say was clear, even if you personally don't feel the intention and the action align enough. We are not computers. We are not bound to technicalities. I am not going to say that technically I must have said and meant something different and be stuck to it. I've clarified what was going on, and the clarification should be taken into account if you are interested in the point of the original statement at all.

There are fun experiments to be had by playing around with words like this, but now is not the time. We are – or rather, I am – talking about a person who missed what a message was supposed to convey by taking a technically acceptable read and discounting how plausible that read was. Telling me that I said something else because it's technically a valid read but doesn't flow from the conversation at all is the same thing.

So what you are saying is that if I catch you "taking a technical read and discounting the plausibility that read was" we can then totally ignore everything else you have to say about any subject because you might possibly do the same thing?

You are just illustrating my point here. You are using illogical methods to disqualify someone's work.

Should you check to make sure their work is accurate? yes, especially if you know they have made mistakes in the past. Should you discard their position out of hand? No, that is committing logical fallacies.


Hi Pot my name is Kettle

Except of course if you bother to read my posts you know that I change my arguments when someone presents facts. I also tend to verify peoples data when I don't trust the source. I then either agree with their facts or I point out where they are wrong. I just do it silently and in the shadows. I don't trump it out as if I'm somehow better than everyone else because I'm not.

Kurald Galain
2014-08-07, 05:35 PM
Except a DM could easily say, in 4e that you can't use a certain power or ability on a certain enemy or in a certain area, based on rule 0.
You're completely missing the point here.

SiuiS
2014-08-08, 01:53 AM
So what you are saying is that if I catch you "taking a technical read and discounting the plausibility that read was" we can then totally ignore everything else you have to say about any subject because you might possibly do the same thing?


I don't know. What does that quote mean without context or punctuation?



Should you check to make sure their work is accurate? yes, especially if you know they have made mistakes in the past. Should you discard their position out of hand? No, that is committing logical fallacies.


Ah, yes. To satisfy an Internet pedant's desire for logic bereft of emotional intelligence I must go contract HIV and then drink discount tea to see if I am cured by it. That makes so much more sense than considering the situation and applying your ability to reason through things.

Stubbazubba
2014-08-08, 04:12 AM
He's racking up the ignores for a reason. As much as his analysis is worthwhile, it's everything else about his argumentative frame that simply isn't worth putting up with.

I think I'm with Sarth/Knaight/b4k4 on this one: abilities should be just that, abilities, not effects. PC abilities are a means to various ends, just like a skill's application is open-ended, an ability's should be, too. What I seek most in an RPG is to stand in my character's shoes and react to and creatively solve problems as they would. I want to feel that connection to the emergent fiction, and only being able to magically summon vines in arbitrary circumstances is offensive to that notion. I do appreciate the tactical strength of D&D's combat system, and I see the value in keeping game effects objective, measured, and predictable, but at the same time I wonder if a clean combat engine is really integral to most modern role-players' concept of the game.

The well-developed nature of the combat engine is a consequence of the game's wargaming roots. It is possibly D&D's greatest strength, how exciting combat can be. But while Gygax insisted the game was about objective survival against oppressive tasks, from the genre's inception many wanted to take it in other directions, seeing more narrative possibilities or even theatric prompts. Today, RPGs are not generally understood as survival games, but rather an adventure game of some sort, often associated with either storytelling or set-piece combat. Just what each person sees as a game's strongest feature or greatest failing reflects their personal taste, and trying to cater to all the various personalities is probably a fool's errand.

So it is that I'm not sure the combat engine's clean predictability is necessarily an important enough virtue that it would be worth neutering fluff's impact. I do believe abilities need to be objectively defined enough that everyone has an understanding of what entangling vines can and cannot do, but then the effects possible should be open to new applications. After all, that's the single biggest advantage to putting up with the fallability of human DMs, is that creative player ideas can be effective. Problem solving is not just about tracking the logistics of the parties' various resources, nor is it about the tactics of what to do when in combat, but should extend to using existing tools in novel ways. That should be rewarded, and divorcing fluff and effects severely weakens that possibility for the sake of predictable tactics.

Tightly constrained tactical combat isn't a bad thing, it makes combat more Chess-like, and Chess can be very exciting, but it's almost completely a skill-based game; there's little room for ingenuity. It also doesn't need or benefit from a GM, other than you need someone to take the enemies' turns. D&D isn't really a skill-based game; it's not a competitive game, for one. Sure it's somewhat competitive within a combat, but the game is just not adversarial in nature. The leveling system exists to reduce the need for player skill to defeat opponents (although the ever-increasing opposition tends to nullify this effect). While requiring and encouraging some skill is both necessary and adds to the excitement of the game, we need to leave room for spontaneous ingenuity, and that primarily comes from using existing abilities in unique ways, and that requires giving logical effect to the ability's fluff.

tl;dr - wargames benefit from predictable, immutable effects, but D&D isn't a wargame; many find the ability to apply old abilities in new ways to solve problems creatively a key draw of the game. If the game chooses a side between fluff and crunch, it should do so consciously, and hopefully be sure that conforms to player expectations.

SiuiS
2014-08-09, 03:41 PM
I think I'm with Sarth/Knaight/b4k4 on this one: abilities should be just that, abilities, not efects.

That's a good way to put it, cuts through a lot of the rhetoric.

Lokiare
2014-08-09, 04:21 PM
Ah, yes. To satisfy an Internet pedant's desire for logic bereft of emotional intelligence I must go contract HIV and then drink discount tea to see if I am cured by it. That makes so much more sense than considering the situation and applying your ability to reason through things.

You could do that, or you could just look up any scientific studies done on HIV and that special tea to see if there is anything to it. They may be correct in thinking that AIDS can be reverted to HIV if the science shows it. Not only that, but they might be correct on D&D rules as well, since they are totally different things.


He's racking up the ignores for a reason. As much as his analysis is worthwhile, it's everything else about his argumentative frame that simply isn't worth putting up with.

Any chance at a jab right? I mean if you can't beat em using logic and reason, make fun of them right?

MadBear
2014-08-09, 05:24 PM
Any chance at a jab right? I mean if you can't beat em using logic and reason, make fun of them right?

any justification you can think of other then the fact that you're abrasive and rude most of the time. :smallwink:

SiuiS
2014-08-09, 09:27 PM
You could do that, or you could just look up any scientific studies done on HIV and that special tea to see if there is anything to it. They may be correct in thinking that AIDS can be reverted to HIV if the science shows it. Not only that, but they might be correct on D&D rules as well, since they are totally different things.

It's not special tea you numpty, that's the entire point! You are arguing that I'm in the wrong for not honestly evaluating the ability of Dr Pepper brand cola to cure malaria. And you are arguing this position as if I am the slow one.

darkdragoon
2014-08-09, 10:08 PM
It's a mixed bag from what I've seen. There are steps in the right direction. There are steps back, even as far as from what was in the playtests. There's a couple that scream "I don't have a drinking problem, I just go to AA meetings because I want to."

As an aside I still feel its wrong to have the stalking horse of the previous version entrenched as the grand poobah of fixee makee all better.



Wizards being breakable doesn't mean they're broken. It means they can be broken. And that's a player thing.

Choosing to ignore sections of the PHB does not make them disappear.
Sure, you have the ability to carry the other characters. You can choose to handicap yourself. You can decide when your limitations take effect. Other classes do not have this freedom. This is larger than any band-aid.

A lot of this was deconstructed when 3.0 was new, very little has changed except for the occasional new horror unleashed by another company.

captpike
2014-08-09, 10:29 PM
Perhaps you misinterpreted my meaning. Lets go with this instead:

Verisimilitude > Balance

Its all about the flavor, I need classes that are both flavorful and unique. I have always enjoyed the literary archetypes that differentiate the D&D classes. 4E bored me.

except of course that Verisimilitude changes per person, so you can't plan for it. nor should you give up something very valuable so you can roll the dice on who your game will "feel like D&D" to.

captpike
2014-08-09, 10:46 PM
Lokaire, most people just dont like 4th Edition, and if it had been a long term financially successful game we wouldn't be having these discussions right now.

please show the evidence of this or stop lying/pulling "facts" out of thin air

also your two statements do not correlate. the fact someone did something does not mean it was the best thing to do. meaning the fact they canned 4e does not mean they should have. Wotc is not perfect

SiuiS
2014-08-10, 12:46 AM
Choosing to ignore sections of the PHB does not make them disappear.
Sure, you have the ability to carry the other characters. You can choose to handicap yourself. You can decide when your limitations take effect. Other classes do not have this freedom. This is larger than any band-aid.

A lot of this was deconstructed when 3.0 was new, very little has changed except for the occasional new horror unleashed by another company.

Breaking the game is not a section in the player's handbook. Your point is moot.

Yes, you can break the game as a wizard. This does not mean that game-breaking is the default wizard state. Playing the game below the 99th percentile of efficiency is not handicapping yourself, because you do not automatically play at or above 99% efficiency to begin with.

Envyus
2014-08-10, 12:54 AM
please show the evidence of this or stop lying/pulling "facts" out of thin air

also your two statements do not correlate. the fact someone did something does not mean it was the best thing to do. meaning the fact they canned 4e does not mean they should have. Wotc is not perfect

Oh crap your back. The fighting on this forum shall become worse.

oxybe
2014-08-10, 01:50 AM
Just to make a note: if we're going to call an edition as a failure on the sole idea that the parent company stopped officially supporting it, then 1st, 2nd & 3rd are just as much of a failure as 4th ed.

Then again, it could just be that 4th ed's failure, like 3rd ed before it, was simply not making enough money for Hasbro's bottom dollar, rather then the system being bad or unpopular with fans.

I remember reading, I think it was by Ryan Dancy, that (and i'm paraphrasing mind you) Hasbro required a brand to make 50mil with a plan to go up to 100mil a year before they could lend it the full financial support of the company. Less then the 50mil and your brand's life might be shelved if the corp thinks it's manpower wasted.

I don't think any TTRPG, even D&D at it's prime, could pull those numbers off. Then again, before the Hasbro purchase of WotC, the 3rd ed D&D development team probably have expected that they could rely on the MtG money to finance the company's operations. As long as D&D made enough money to feed the devs/editors/artists, it was fine... I'm sure WotC knew this when it bought TSR and decided to revive D&D.

Once Wizards was bought out and it's various products separated into individual brands (IE: the Magic brand, the D&D brand, etc...) rather then a single, umbrella "Wizards of the Coast" brand D&D lost a lot of it's backing. As such, though the foundations for 3rd ed was already pretty much set in stone before WotC was acquired, D&D's (or at least TTRPG's) current distribution method simply doesn't work for the goals it needs to get sustained support from Hasbro. This, I believe, is why we saw a huge push for digital tools and whatnot with the advent of 4th, as well as a scrambling of trying to reorganize the staff and get a new direction up and running as fast as possible. While it's a shame it didn't turn out as I would have hoped, hindsight can give us a little bit of insight on their reasoning.

Hasbro doesn't want "D&D" levels of success (even if, in the TTRPG world, that success is actually enormous when compared to it's peers). It wants Micheal Bay's Transformers or My Little Pony levels of market share and expansion.

D&D is just a brand, regardless of the emotion we invest in it, and it's one in a bad position: As much as people harp on or turn their nose up at 4th ed for "failing", remember: 3rd ed was also cancelled because of lackluster sales. It failed. 2nd ed did too.

I really do think the 5th ed guys are under FAR more stress to succeed then we might be lead to believe. If 5th ed fails, I would say one should expect the D&D TTRPG to be shelved for a long few years and the only stuff we'll see are novels and the occasional boardgame/videogame. Maybe a bad movie or two.

Stubbazubba
2014-08-10, 04:00 AM
Any chance at a jab right? I mean if you can't beat em using logic and reason, make fun of them right?

1) Hey, be fair, I did also complement you.

2) You have been beaten using logic and reason on several occasions, just never to your satisfaction, because you change the wording of your position or worse, simply repeat your conclusions as if they are still totally uncontroverted. At that point you start pointing to how well-supported your argument is and how the other side lacks facts and evidence, while criticizing them for some logical fallacy or another and provoking them with digs at their intelligence or reading comprehension. Then you claim disbelief when people call you combative and insist on them providing more proof when you have cursorily dismissed the last proof without any good faith response to it. This is an easy pattern to follow, you do it every time, and that, as I said, makes any point you do make simply not worth the trouble of dealing with you.

MadBear
2014-08-10, 04:07 AM
please show the evidence of this or stop lying/pulling "facts" out of thin air

also your two statements do not correlate. the fact someone did something does not mean it was the best thing to do. meaning the fact they canned 4e does not mean they should have. Wotc is not perfect

Hello. So after reading what you wrote, I initially thought to myself "isn't it self evident that 4th edition was worse", and I quickly realized that my own bias could easily be clouding my judgement, and it sure as heck wasn't proof, that 4th wasn't well received. (it is proof that it wasn't well received by me and my friends, but that's only 8 people).

So you inspired me to look into D&D and see if I could provide you with some evidence that 4th edition was in fact, not that well received by comparison. So here's my list for what it's worth:

1. GOOGLE search fun time.

When I did a google search of "4th edition d&d failure", I get 8 articles about why 4th edition failed, 1 Paizo post dicussing the death of 4th edition, and 1 reddit post defending 4th edition.

So at this point, this doesn't tell us much, other then, when you ask for why 4th edition was a failure on google, you get peoples opinions.

The next search I did was "3.5 edition d&d failure", to have a comparison. In this one you get 5 hits on rules in 3.5, 3 articles on why 4th edition sucks, 1 article on why 5th edition will be bad, and 1 article on why 3.0 is better then ad&d.

So this tells us, that calling 3.5 a failure doesn't produces as much opinionated traffic as 4th edition did. While not conclusive proof, it does point towards 4th edition being more polarizing then 3.5 was.

2. Pathfinder, the elephant in the room.

As 4th edition was released, pathfinder started to become more and more popular. Pathfinder isn't a new rules set, rather then a continuation of 3.5. The fact that they out sold 4th edition speaks to the volumes of people who did not find 4th edition satisfying. The reason this is telling, is that it shows that they left a large player base behind who didn't return with their new edition (I freely admit I was one of them). Had it been a different system that overtook 4th edition, they could at least argue that people just wanted a different system, but to be beat in sales by a competitor whose using your old rule set says alot.

3. This article on search traffic on the web

http://http://www.awesomedice.com/blog/284/google-statistics-dd-vs-pathfinder/

This shows the search volume by edition in 2012 of the various editions. Notice that 3.5 was still higher then 4th edition 4 years later.

It also shows that after the release of 4th edition in 2008, 4th edition searches dropped off comparatively to 3.5, and pathfinder. So the new edition wasn't getting as much looking into as it's old predecessor, and the guys who copied the predecessor.

4. The fact that it only produced material for 3.5 years

from 2000-2008 you essentially had 1 version of dnd (3.0/3.5). Yes you can split that if you want, but really 3.5 was just cleaning up some slop that was present in 3.0. From 1989-1995 you had 2nd edition. Again there was a revise, but it was still essentially the same game.

4th edition just didn't last.

Now at the end of all of this, I'm sure you can just ignore everything I've said. But I feel that what I've presented is sufficient evidence to at least back up the claim that 4th edition wasn't well received. Sure, some people did like it, but not enough to make it worth continuing.

Falka
2014-08-10, 04:28 AM
I've been thinking on this for a few days. Like I said, I totally get the opinion that "fireball is a fireball, and damage is incidental" or that the trappings of a spell are the real spell.

I still tend to prefer keeping the mechanics first, and it's mostly not because of magical effects. It's because of the mundane ones.

D&D players have a long and storied history of interjecting "realism" into places where it might not belong. And, more often than not, it's non-magical effects that bear the brunt of this. The "why?!" is easy enough - magic is magic, while non-magic is not.

So when we look at a game where non-magical folks have a wide variety of cool tricks - like 4e - going "flavor-first" gets really risky. The iconic Fighter Encounter 7, Come and Get It, is a shining example of this; it (now) requires an attack vs. Will (which = save vs. will in 3e parlance) and draws enemies to you on a hit. I've heard many (many, many) a time about how unrealistic it is that (say) an evil wizard would ever fall for a trick like that, even if you do beat his Will defense. Likewise, something like Inspiring Word could run into similar issues ("what do you mean you healed him? didn't i just say he got stabbed by a big spear?!") On the 5e end, Battlemaster Fighters get an ability to Frighten their enemies per the Alpha ("naah, you're 8th level and he's 16th, no way he'd ever be scared of you, i don't care what the dice say").

This isn't to say that magic is immune to this; we've seen some examples here. But there's much less of an instinctive reaction to, say, prevent a Fireball from being cast while you're in the Arctic. Or for Charm Monster to fail because of how angry a troll is. Or for magical healing to fail because patching up wounds that fast is unrealistic and what about shock anyway?

So that's pretty much where I am with all this. I can see the counter-argument - and remember, I'm a huge fan of oldschool D&D, too - but when it comes right down to it, I put "competent non-magical characters" as a major goal of mine for a new edition of D&D, and a focus on flavor-first seems to draw away from that.

I agree with your opinion, or at least with most of it.

I usually take the following approach when I'm confronted with a strange rule or circumstances that allow for an odd scenario: I try to compare the situation with a similar one, and try to find the logic behind it.

After all, D&D just tries to simulate situations and it's a rulebook, pretty much like a lawbill. The difference is that it tries to rule on "physics" of an imaginary world, besides permission and prohibition, and for that we cannot imagine for it to contain every single exception.

For this I mean that we should interpret the rules as the devs wanted them to be interpreted. That's a common principle in law: laws shouldn't be interpreted in the opposite direction they were supposed to be taken.

The reason why the Storm Domain doesn't allow the Cleric to fly indoors is because the domain's theme is closely related to wind, storms and air. So it would be silly if you could cast it in a place where you couldn't take advantage of that (actually I had to explain that to a player yesterday).

Likewise, the Paladin's Oath of Vengeance has some logic behind it. Just because it's a blood oath, it doesn't mean your character is evil. But it doesn't make sense for him to be LG (and when I read the rules, they confirmed it: he must be Neutral).

What I try to say here is that rules just need to make sense. Furthermore, this doesn't descard the "because magic" option.

If I stab someone, but afterwards, I heal him with a Bard Spell, well... it's magic. It's supposed to be used that way. It doesn't matter how serious the wound is (actually, that DM screwed up because you shouldn't say that someone gets impaled by a spear when they haven't been dropped to 0 HP).

Likewise, I don't see why you couldn't Charm an angry troll. At most, I could give him a circumstance bonus but that's it. Actually, Charm had the incentive of being a stronger Enchantment than the lower-spell ones such as Suggestion, Charm Person, etc... They were always read as being weak and unreliable under certain circumstances, while Charm Monster being the "default Charm" but only accesible at higher levels.

Anyways, I'm sorry if I cherry picked with your examples, but I think that precisely in cases such as those you've stated, it's not really a matter of the rules allowing strange circumstances, but rather a bad DM not being able to use them appropriately.

Then again, rules have flaws. I believe that a hook costs more than a climbing rope in 3.5. A friend showed me this and told me he could become rich if he started to buy massively climbing ropes and selling the hooks. :p

But obviously that's now how the rule should work as it was devised. Again, a matter of interpretation.

Craft (Cheese)
2014-08-10, 05:11 AM
If I stab someone, but afterwards, I heal him with a Bard Spell, well... it's magic. It's supposed to be used that way. It doesn't matter how serious the wound is (actually, that DM screwed up because you shouldn't say that someone gets impaled by a spear when they haven't been dropped to 0 HP).

The problem is this: "According to the rules, Inspiring Word can take someone bleeding out with a spear in them (i.e. < 0 HP) and make them get up and start fighting again. This doesn't make sense, therefore, Inspiring Word should not be allowed to do that, so I'm going to nerf the power in my games."

Kurald Galain
2014-08-10, 05:29 AM
3. This article on search traffic on the web

http://http://www.awesomedice.com/blog/284/google-statistics-dd-vs-pathfinder/

This shows the search volume by edition in 2012 of the various editions. Notice that 3.5 was still higher then 4th edition 4 years later.

That's very interesting; thanks for posting it. That gives some good insight in what WOTC needs to do to reclaim its old position of market leader.

Also relevant to this discussion is a link that Lokiare posted earlier, in which an industry insider writes that 4E has not been profitable to WOTC (i.e. not that it failed to reach some arbitrary target, but that it failed to cover its own costs). Here's the link (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column/page20&p=5765391#post5765391), and the most relevant part is quoted below.

"Profitability for D&D means that it has to recoup all the costs not only of its development and its on-going support network but also the investment into DDI. I suspect, but do not know, that it has not recouped those costs. And I suspect that none of the current product line (the stuff being solicited and sold as new this year and last year) is even marginally profitable when you factor in the overhead of the sales & marketing teams, plus the RPGA.

Wizard's cost basis is several orders of magnitude higher than Paizos. They have more, higher paid staff. They pay more for art. They pay more for production. They have more overhead costs (rent, legal, etc.) And worse, due to the way Hasbro structures itself, they don't get to claim any credit for the royalties earned by D&D licensing. So the money Wizards gets to use to offset its costs is just from product sales and DDI.
4e is also exclusively sold through middlemen. You can't buy D&D from Wizards of the Coast. Whereas Paizo earns 100% of many of its sales, Wizards only earns 40% on all of the stuff it sells. So Wizards has to sell 2.5 times as many units just to generate the same revenue as 1 unit of a Paizo product sold direct to a consumer.

If it were working financially, you wouldn't have seen Essentials. Essentials, to me, was the visible indicator that the strategy of selling the highest margin product - the core books, had failed for 4e, and that Wizards was seeking to make revenues (and profits) elsewhere. As I didn't see a huge groundswell of reaction to Essentials, I conclude that the strategy didn't work either."



In particular, note that WOTC has learned from past experience that "the splatbook threadmill" isn't profitable (because it requires ongoing development/production costs and the most revenue comes from the PHB1 of any edition), and note that they have decided that 5E won't have a splatbook threadmill. Mearls has stated there will be few splatbooks, and each will be a big event; that's very different from their (and TSR's) old strategy of 5-10 splats per year. WOTC has clearly been learning from the past, which can only be a good thing.

Falka
2014-08-10, 06:00 AM
The problem is this: "According to the rules, Inspiring Word can take someone bleeding out with a spear in them (i.e. < 0 HP) and make them get up and start fighting again. This doesn't make sense, therefore, Inspiring Word should not be allowed to do that, so I'm going to nerf the power in my games."

Though I'm still not sure about that interpretation either. Inspiring Word is still a magical power, so why wouldn't it heal a spear stab? It's not like the Warlord, whose powers are all martial. And anyways, 4e is more "edgy" per se, so it's easy to interpret it in a way such as "I convince my partner that the wound isn't such a big deal - he can keep on fighting thanks to his willpower".

Mind you that when you play with a ruleset you shouldn't have unrealistic expectations. If you're looking for gritty and mundane games, 4e isn't made for that and it shows.

Craft (Cheese)
2014-08-10, 09:41 AM
Though I'm still not sure about that interpretation either. Inspiring Word is still a magical power, so why wouldn't it heal a spear stab? It's not like the Warlord, whose powers are all martial. And anyways, 4e is more "edgy" per se, so it's easy to interpret it in a way such as "I convince my partner that the wound isn't such a big deal - he can keep on fighting thanks to his willpower".

Mind you that when you play with a ruleset you shouldn't have unrealistic expectations. If you're looking for gritty and mundane games, 4e isn't made for that and it shows.

Err, Inspiring Word is a Warlord power, and it's fluffed as being completely nonmagical. That's why so many people have problems with it, and similar 4E martial abilities.

You sorta have to have those expectations if you want martial characters who can stand up to spellcasters though. Really, in a D&D-like system, you're stuck with a choice:

- Wizards are capable of casting spells with abilities that go above and beyond what is possible for a human being, and even beyond the laws of physics.

- Fighters are modeled after realistic pseudo-medieval warriors.

- Wizards and Fighters are balanced, at least in an intra-party balance sense.

Pick two. You either have to nerf wizards into the dirt, buff fighters into the stratosphere, or abandon the idea that martial and magical characters can adventure together in the same party without it being an Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit sorta deal.

There's a fourth option, if you're willing to abandon D&D-like assumptions: Fighters and Wizards aren't balanced by being on similar terms in their in-character capabilities, but in some metagame sense. For example, there's the solution FATE-based games take where taking magical abilities costs Refresh. (I don't think that solution is terribly effective, but it's a start.)

Kurald Galain
2014-08-10, 09:57 AM
Err, Inspiring Word is a Warlord power, and it's fluffed as being completely nonmagical. That's why so many people have problems with it, and similar 4E martial abilities.

That's incorrect. The objection is not because it's a martial ability, but because the ability makes no sense.

People also, and equally, object to magical abilities that make no sense. For instance, the warlock has a power that allows him to teleport an enemy straight to hell... and also teleport him back the next round. This leads to the obvious question why you can't just teleport the enemy into hell and leave him there.

Now the reason that you hear more complaints about Inspring Word is because all warlords get it at level one, whereas the hell power is an optional pick and very high level. The reason is not that players want or expect warlords to be weaker than bards.

Falka
2014-08-10, 10:02 AM
Oh right, I thought you were talking about the Bard's power. But anyway, the point still stands.

The thing is, 4e isn't about being mundane. The game system all revolves around the characters being heroes right from level 1.

The definition that you gave is what you expect from a D&D like game. However, that doesn't mean that all D&D games, to be D&D, must meet those expectations. That's a non true Scotsman fallacy and we could spend hours discussing what it means to be a "truly D&D" game. It wouldn't get us anywhere, though.

Your assumptions would be valid if we were to be talking about AD&D and 3 / 3.5 because they sustain a gritty component to some extent (especially AD&D). But that isn't the case of 4e DnD, which is way more inspired in manga / wuxia trends and so, both the power balance between martial and magic characters is very equal. The characters are extraordinary per se, because they are the Heros. Not because they wield magic per se.

I can get that with 4e some players would get a suspension of their inmersion, but you're trying to criticise a donkey for not being able to win a horse race. You're asking for the game to have a particular trait that it wasn't meant to have. You can argue that the game format is quite edgy for your taste (valid opinion), not that it should be gritty (you can't blame a pepsi for not tasting like coke).

pwykersotz
2014-08-10, 11:05 AM
That's incorrect. The objection is not because it's a martial ability, but because the ability makes no sense.

People also, and equally, object to magical abilities that make no sense. For instance, the warlock has a power that allows him to teleport an enemy straight to hell... and also teleport him back the next round. This leads to the obvious question why you can't just teleport the enemy into hell and leave him there.

Now the reason that you hear more complaints about Inspring Word is because all warlords get it at level one, whereas the hell power is an optional pick and very high level. The reason is not that players want or expect warlords to be weaker than bards.

Pure conjecture follows:

We see this stuff in books and cinema all the time. I automatically read it in my head not as teleporting them to hell then teleporting them back, but pushing them against the planar barriers and letting them skirt through hell. But once the pressure is let up, the creature snaps back.

charcoalninja
2014-08-10, 12:56 PM
Pure conjecture follows:

We see this stuff in books and cinema all the time. I automatically read it in my head not as teleporting them to hell then teleporting them back, but pushing them against the planar barriers and letting them skirt through hell. But once the pressure is let up, the creature snaps back.

I love that with 4e powers everyone asks things like "why can't they stay there" with Hurl Through Hell, but the moment it's a 3.5 spell (and there ARE 3.5 spells that do similar things) everyone immediately accepts it saying "hey that's just how the spell works". It shows a fundamental mistake in how people view 4e that I find shocking. 4e presents the mechanics of how it works. This spell sends them to hell and they come back. Why? Hey DM and group, make that up since your world could have any number of oddities and we don't want to cramp your style.

It's bull. We get it, 4e left a sour taste in a lot of mouths mostly I believe because of:
A) Terrible marketing - "Hey guys you know that game you love so much and have been playing for almost a decade? It's crap! You should totally play this".
B) Alienating godcasters - people who fundamentally feel that casters should always be better than mundanes because magic, didn't like 4e. They weren't Gods anymore and they didn't like that.
C) Invasive Errata and Essentials Marketing Failure - If you used the character builder you didn't know how to play the game really because the damn thing changed every month. They even overhauled the CLERIC class and most of its powers a year after it had been in play for crying out loud! Also Essentials, is it a new game? expansion of the existing game? If it's an expansion why does it have Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue classes? We already have those... Why does it have the same monsters that I had in my Monster Manuel? urm...

Add those together and you have people wanting to find something wrong with the game and you have the fiction of "it's an MMO on paper!" and "all the classes are the same!" tripe when 3.5 had even fewer subsystems for class function than 4e. In 3.5 you're either a caster and have dailies, or you're a martial and have at wills. 4e at least had those and Psionics which was at will plus point system to boost them.

Cibulan
2014-08-10, 01:07 PM
I love that with 4e powers everyone asks things like "why can't they stay there" with Hurl Through Hell, but the moment it's a 3.5 spell (and there ARE 3.5 spells that do similar things) everyone immediately accepts it saying "hey that's just how the spell works". It shows a fundamental mistake in how people view 4e that I find shocking. 4e presents the mechanics of how it works. This spell sends them to hell and they come back. Why? Hey DM and group, make that up since your world could have any number of oddities and we don't want to cramp your style.

It's bull. We get it, 4e left a sour taste in a lot of mouths mostly I believe because of:
A) Terrible marketing - "Hey guys you know that game you love so much and have been playing for almost a decade? It's crap! You should totally play this".
B) Alienating godcasters - people who fundamentally feel that casters should always be better than mundanes because magic, didn't like 4e. They weren't Gods anymore and they didn't like that.
C) Invasive Errata and Essentials Marketing Failure - If you used the character builder you didn't know how to play the game really because the damn thing changed every month. They even overhauled the CLERIC class and most of its powers a year after it had been in play for crying out loud! Also Essentials, is it a new game? expansion of the existing game? If it's an expansion why does it have Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue classes? We already have those... Why does it have the same monsters that I had in my Monster Manuel? urm...

Add those together and you have people wanting to find something wrong with the game and you have the fiction of "it's an MMO on paper!" and "all the classes are the same!" tripe when 3.5 had even fewer subsystems for class function than 4e. In 3.5 you're either a caster and have dailies, or you're a martial and have at wills. 4e at least had those and Psionics which was at will plus point system to boost them.
I know you're just trying to defend an edition that you like but as a 3.P player, it sounds like the typical "4E is so great, you're just too dumb/closed minded/hard headed/grognard to understand that!" Which goes back to your point A (I'll also say your point B is just a continuation of A). My group played 4e for about a year and then went to Pathfinder because we just couldn't get into it. Not everyone is going to have a "come to Jesus" moment with 4e.

Kurald Galain
2014-08-10, 01:07 PM
I love that with 4e powers everyone asks things like "why can't they stay there" with Hurl Through Hell, but the moment it's a 3.5 spell (and there ARE 3.5 spells that do similar things) everyone immediately accepts it saying "hey that's just how the spell works".

There's a very simple reason for that: 4E is full of such mechanics, and most first-level characters will already have one or two of them; whereas in 3E they exist but are pretty rare (to the point that you can't even name the spell you're talking about).

Yes, really: lack of verisimilitude killed 4E. This is why both PF and 5E pay a lot of attention to verisimilitude.

Zalbuu
2014-08-10, 01:46 PM
4th edition just didn't last.

Now at the end of all of this, I'm sure you can just ignore everything I've said. But I feel that what I've presented is sufficient evidence to at least back up the claim that 4th edition wasn't well received. Sure, some people did like it, but not enough to make it worth continuing.


This is just so wildly disingenuous the only thing it confirms is your bias.

First, as has been repeatedly pointed out, commercial success does not a good game make.

Second, while actually taking the time to go to Google is admirable, searching for complaints about an edition is not in any way, shape, or form an indicator of the actual commercial success of a product. All you have confirmed is that you were able to find people complaining, and given your sample size of, what, 10 posts, hardly conclusive of even the opinions about the editions. Additionally, keep in mind that 8 years is a long time for the Internet, and as more people come online that's going to mean more people who want to profit/be noticed, and the way to generate traffic is with negative opinions. Look at the MOUNTAIN of negative opinions about 5e. Does that mean it is by far the worst edition ever produced?

Lastly, take a look at the years each edition was produced:

1st: 74 - 89 (15 years)
2nd: 89 - 00 (11 years)
3rd: 00 - 08 (8 years)
4th: 08 - 14 (6 years)

Notice a pattern? Using the number of years a product is produced as a metric of success is a very silly idea. Companies naturally improve on their product, and iterate on it faster. The consumer base they build naturally demands a better and better product, and is willing to wait less time for the new product to "fix" the problems with the latest one. By your metric the Model T is objectively the greatest performance car ever produced.




Also relevant to this discussion is a link that Lokiare posted earlier, in which an industry insider writes that 4E has not been profitable to WOTC (i.e. not that it failed to reach some arbitrary target, but that it failed to cover its own costs)

[i]"Profitability for D&D means that it has to recoup all the costs not only of its development and its on-going support network but also the investment into DDI. I suspect, but do not know, that it has not recouped those costs. And I suspect that none of the current product line (the stuff being solicited and sold as new this year and last year) is even marginally profitable when you factor in the overhead of the sales & marketing teams, plus the RPGA.
[Emphasis added]

And from there I pretty much ignore everything else you have to say. You took an opinion piece, which by its own admission presents no facts at all and instead spins a tale of assumption and conjecture, and presented it as factual evidence of the failure of 4e. I invite you to A) see above with regards to 'good' vs. 'successful', and B) learn how opinions differ from facts. And before you say anything about the vague 'business insider': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority




Breaking the game is not a section in the player's handbook. Your point is moot.

Yes, you can break the game as a wizard. This does not mean that game-breaking is the default wizard state. Playing the game below the 99th percentile of efficiency is not handicapping yourself, because you do not automatically play at or above 99% efficiency to begin with.


1) I don't even know where to begin with this. We don't say that a lack of a rules section about using performance enhancing drugs means that they are A-okay. We make rules against using them. How is this hard to grasp? If it is allowed, it will be used, and it will ruin the game for those that have to experience it. Just because you personally won't or are cool with it doesn't make the problem go away.

2) That's a very cool strawman there. Game-breaking wizard IS the default state, have you ever played 3.X? You'd have to try really, really hard to not utterly invalidate the rest of your party by level 20. You don't need to be in the 99th percentile to break it; you don't even need to be in the 50th percentile. Heck, I'd argue that the lower the skill of the player involved, the larger the likely disparity between caster and noncaster classes. It takes a lot of work to squeeze the optimization out of a limited class; it takes a lot less work to realize that being able to control ropes with your mind solves a lot of problems.

Kurald Galain
2014-08-10, 01:57 PM
Lastly, take a look at the years each edition was produced:

A more accurate figure would be:
1st: 74 - 89 (15 years)
2nd: 89 - 00 (11 years)
3rd: 00 - 14 (14 years)
4th: 08 - 12 (4 years)

Also, note that WOTC is putting the 1E and 3E rulebooks back in print. Hm, I wonder why :smallbiggrin:

Yorrin
2014-08-10, 02:04 PM
A more accurate figure would be:
1st: 74 - 89 (15 years)
2nd: 89 - 00 (11 years)
3rd: 00 - 14 (14 years)
4th: 08 - 12 (4 years)

Also, note that WOTC is putting the 1E and 3E rulebooks back in print. Hm, I wonder why :smallbiggrin:

To be fair there are probably about as many people still playing 2e as there are playing 3.5, it's just that they dont have as much of an internet presence.

MadBear
2014-08-10, 02:04 PM
It's bull. We get it, 4e left a sour taste in a lot of mouths mostly I believe because of:
A) Terrible marketing - "Hey guys you know that game you love so much and have been playing for almost a decade? It's crap! You should totally play this".
B) Alienating godcasters - people who fundamentally feel that casters should always be better than mundanes because magic, didn't like 4e. They weren't Gods anymore and they didn't like that.
C) Invasive Errata and Essentials Marketing Failure - If you used the character builder you didn't know how to play the game really because the damn thing changed every month. They even overhauled the CLERIC class and most of its powers a year after it had been in play for crying out loud! Also Essentials, is it a new game? expansion of the existing game? If it's an expansion why does it have Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue classes? We already have those... Why does it have the same monsters that I had in my Monster Manuel? urm...


and sadly the list of flaws in 4th edition didn't end there. My group hated the mechanics with a vengeance, it didn't see the new rules system as fitting what we considered to be d&d, we felt pigeonholed into what abilities/feats to take, and we didn't like that all classes felt the same. I'm sure there are other people who had similar gripes, people who liked some of the changes, and people who hated it for reasons neither of us listed.

Still, I'm much happier with how 5th edition is turning out, and my group is taking a break from pathfinder to give it a shot.

Zalbuu
2014-08-10, 02:19 PM
A more accurate figure would be:
1st: 74 - 89 (15 years)
2nd: 89 - 00 (11 years)
3rd: 00 - 14 (14 years)
4th: 08 - 12 (4 years)

Also, note that WOTC is putting the 1E and 3E rulebooks back in print. Hm, I wonder why :smallbiggrin:

lol @ including 3e. 3.5e and PF all in your 3rd timeline, and not essentials and fan-made products in 4e. Truely, you are the master of confirming your bias.

Maybe because A) 1e is the original edition, B) PF has kept 3.5 popular and they're trying to recapture the market. I can't believe it needs to be said again, but popular =/= good. And of course, you submit reprinting as proof of something being "better".. what would you like them to do, start republishing 4e the same year they stop publishing it? Hm, I wonder what sort of person would engage in that kind of intellectual dishonesty?

Sartharina
2014-08-10, 02:25 PM
Inspiring Word makes perfect sense. It draws upon a Healing Surge, meaning the fight it draws out of a person was within them all along. (And HP measures how much fight is in someone, not their physical condition). When he uses Inspiring Word to pick up the guy bleeding out from a spear wound, he's not making the wound go away - he's making the guy stop giving a **** about how hurt he is, and get up and fight anyway.

Pure conjecture follows:

We see this stuff in books and cinema all the time. I automatically read it in my head not as teleporting them to hell then teleporting them back, but pushing them against the planar barriers and letting them skirt through hell. But once the pressure is let up, the creature snaps back.This is kinda what I got out of it as well - the person still remains 'tethered' to the plane they're currently on, while the power flips them to Hell - but doesn't re-tether them the same way a Plane Shift ritual does. Hell itself is rejecting them and telling them to go back home, while the power is telling them to stay in Hell. Once the power ends, or the person overpowers it, Hell sends them back.

MadBear
2014-08-10, 02:35 PM
popular =/= good

It is worth pointing out that while this is true for an individual (individuals may or may not conform to overall opinion), when gauging what a collective of peoples opinions on a matter are, popularity is an indicator of what people consider to be good.

For instance: I'm not a fan of the board game Risk. It's not that interesting to me, and has many flaws that detract from making it what I consider to be a good game. On the other hand, Mage Knight is a much more fun game, that has alot of intricate flowing parts, that I do enjoy.

Now if I set up standards of what I consider a good game to be, I could objectively make a case for Mage Knight being better then Risk. This doesn't make it a more popular game though. And the I have to realize that while my standards say that Mage Knight is better, that doesn't mean that someone else can't set up their own standards making Risk better.

But when we talk about a companies view of a successful game, we're not talking about that sort of thing. In a companies view, popularity=good, because that's what sells. (outside fringe cases).

Titanium Dragon
2014-08-10, 04:11 PM
It is worth pointing out that while this is true for an individual (individuals may or may not conform to overall opinion), when gauging what a collective of peoples opinions on a matter are, popularity is an indicator of what people consider to be good.

For instance: I'm not a fan of the board game Risk. It's not that interesting to me, and has many flaws that detract from making it what I consider to be a good game. On the other hand, Mage Knight is a much more fun game, that has alot of intricate flowing parts, that I do enjoy.

Now if I set up standards of what I consider a good game to be, I could objectively make a case for Mage Knight being better then Risk. This doesn't make it a more popular game though. And the I have to realize that while my standards say that Mage Knight is better, that doesn't mean that someone else can't set up their own standards making Risk better.

But when we talk about a companies view of a successful game, we're not talking about that sort of thing. In a companies view, popularity=good, because that's what sells. (outside fringe cases).

Ah, but just because people believe something does not make it true.

Popularity makes for a successful product.

In real life, the reason that 4th edition had trouble was quite simple:

The OGL.

Wizards of the Coast screwed up badly when they made 3rd edition, which is, in fact, a terrible game as any competent game designer can tell you. The whole thing is a mess - the casting system sucks, it is very complicated in many negative ways, save or die effects break the game in half, your powers don't fit on your character sheet if you're a caster, different things with the same gold piece value have wildly different levels of functionality, cure sticks are the way to go with healing, magic items often didn't feel significant, there's an enormous imbalance in power level and options between classes, monsters don't have any sort of mathematical basis underlying their stats and challenge rating, ect.

But their worst mistake was the OGL. The OGL was moronic - it screwed them over badly. It meant that people could simply copy paste their game and sell it themselves indefinitely. It was an absolutely moronic move, as it meant that when they inevitably made the next edition of D&D, people could keep selling and supporting the OLD edition of D&D. This meant that, unlike with first edition and second edition, the game didn't die once WotC moved on - another company could promote the same product and keep selling it.

And that's precisely what Paizo did. They're not innovators; what they did was capitalize (quite well) on nerd rage, and managed to pull a decent fraction of D&D players.

Alas, Wizards of the Coast didn't really understand how to market a new game - they were relying on momentum, rather than actually trying to pull new people in. 4th edition is a great game, but, as with 3rd edition, the barrier to entry is very high - the game is pretty complicated, and it is more tactically intense (rather than strategically intense as 3rd was, where most of the strategy took place outside of the action). And so they failed to replace the lost players and had problems.

5th edition is an obvious attempt to kill off Pathfinder. That's what 5th edition is. If it fails to kill off Pathfinder, it will do poorly. If it succeeds, then perhaps in 6-8 years 3.x will be dead for good and they will be able to do something to actually make a good game.

Because make no mistake - 3.x is a terrible, terrible game. But it was the best people had in 2000, and people hate change.

Unfortunately, the whole thing is bad for them in the long run - 3.x, 4th edition, and 5th edition are all terrible ways to introduce people to roleplaying games.