D&DN is not for me... and that's OK

Over the course of this playtest, it has become increasingly obvious that this new edition of D&D is not the one for me. Much of the new direction seems like moving backwards to me, in terms of game design. Several of the new features made me say, "Why are they doing it this way? Fourth edition did it so much better." It is unlikely that I will purchase the books for the new edition (but hey, we never know for sure until it's released).

But that's OK.

I've been thinking about it some more recently, and I've come to realize that 4E suits my storytelling needs just fine. I don't need a new edition, but others might. There are plenty of people who wanted something that 4E couldn't easily offer, and maybe D&DN is for them. It would, after all, be pretty selfish for me to believe that EVERY edition of D&D should be tailored to my specific preferences, when there's already a version that almost is.

Here's the news that sparked this train of thought:

No Warlord? No Novacat. The warlord is easily, far and away my favorite class in any edition of D&D (to the point where I've ALMOST not played anything else), and they've axed it in a design move that I could never agree with. It is primarily for this reason that I'm confident that D&DN will not speak to me. That said, I know a lot of people had a problem with the warlord, and what it represented with relation to hit points. So now I have my edition with a warlord, and they will have theirs without it.

All of the other issues I have with the system boil down to a similar line of reasoning: Some game element or design philosophy present in 4E is reversed in D&DN, so it makes the game less appealing to me, but more appealing to others. So now I withdraw from attempting to persuade the designers to make the game as I want it, because clearly, this is not a game for me. It is, however, still D&D at its core, and the implications of that fact allow us as a community to embrace it, whether it's our game or not. There will be stories, quirks, flaws, and triumphs just as there has been in any version of the game, and these are the things that unite us, not the mechanics.

TLDR: I'm happy with 4E, and D&DN doesn't detract from that happiness. If a new edition of D&D can bring new players into the community, or bring back old players, then it's objectively a good thing, even if I never play it.

Standard Answer to all 5E rules questions: "Ask your DM."

To me, 5e is like an improve version of 3.5e. So there no moving back, just moving forward.

 



I think it's important to keep in mind that, if this is still true when Next releases (and I think I agree that it is true at the moment) it is not just the 4th Edition fans that will not buy.

All the old AD&D and 2nd Edition grognards like me won't be buying either.

And given that Pathfinder seems to have a firm grip on many of the 3rd Edition and 3.5 fans that leaves very, very few D&D players who will actually be buying this new edition.   



Many loyal pathfinder fans want a more basic game not dependent on magic items.  Pathfinder is only good for high magic monty haul campaigns.


I disagree. My players have very few magic items.
typecasting systems like that as "fact" is not beneficial. If it were factual, then my players would all have boatloads of magic items and gold. They don't even have enough gold to raise a single fleet. 
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
To me, 5e is like an improve version of 3.5e. So there no moving back, just moving forward.

 



I think it's important to keep in mind that, if this is still true when Next releases (and I think I agree that it is true at the moment) it is not just the 4th Edition fans that will not buy.

All the old AD&D and 2nd Edition grognards like me won't be buying either.

And given that Pathfinder seems to have a firm grip on many of the 3rd Edition and 3.5 fans that leaves very, very few D&D players who will actually be buying this new edition.   

I agree. P.F. has a very loyal player base. Paizo also listens closely to what it's fanbase requests. I see that system as being the heavy hitter for years to come. Just being a Paizo fan is a great experience. Being a wotc fan for me is akin to having disentary.Yell

I think it's important to keep in mind that, if this is still true when Next releases (and I think I agree that it is true at the moment) it is not just the 4th Edition fans that will not buy.

All the old AD&D and 2nd Edition grognards like me won't be buying either.

And given that Pathfinder seems to have a firm grip on many of the 3rd Edition and 3.5 fans that leaves very, very few D&D players who will actually be buying this new edition.   



Well I glad you represent the 4th edition fans, the old AD&D and 2nd editions, the
Pathfinder fans, and tell us how they all think of 5e. 

AD&D and 2nd edition people won't buy it
3.0 and 3.5e all went to Pathfinders
4th edition won't buy it just because it's not 4.5

What the whole point of making 5e if every edition fan is against it? 

Let me begin by saying I rarely ever share my own opinions on these boards as I am for next being a game for all Players. However, just this once I'll make an exception. I do this in an effort to explain how some old schoolers might not like Next as of now. Being a devoted Grognard and  long time player of AD&D I'd like to speak to some reasons why next doesn't appeal to me and my group.

1. Classes and feats. I feel as if next's classes are lacking. Feats are dumbed down rather than fun and exciting when compared to 3.75 I.E. P.F. It has no identity of it's own. Give me a better list of feats and feat trees or better yet: kill them entirely. Choose to develope feats and ad options or cut them. Then focus on class design. They need reworking. Mundane is the word I'd use to describe the next classes. Man I would love the idea of a workable proficiency system and a quantifier for what my character can and can't do according to my choices. Example- fighter can use anything he's just auto skilled, big turn off for me. AD&D had detail and depth. this seems cookie cutter. I miss the levels of skill represented by Weapon mastery rules. At least Pathfinder has feats that represent this like vital strike. No wonder fighter types are boring to me. I just get x thrown at me. it's like D&D auto tune. Pick a vague background and you get x. There ya go. Give me control via proficiencies or a feat tree that is well developed. Then make backgrounds have depth if in use ala' the Complete series handbooks.

2. The leathality just isn't enough to make 5e. a gritty game in comparison to AD&D. Monsters are weaksauce and cold- black and white you might say rather than having any substance. A lowered danger level equals boring to my players. Walking on bags of H.P. doesn't make for fun play for old schoolers.

3. We use the d20 slow initiative, slow 3e combat grind vs a simple group AD&D or individual option. More to calculate even without weapon speed. Three different monsters +4 players equals 7 initiative numbers to track across over 20 initiative possiblities. Needless book keeping to grind down combat. I keep combat charted as my players are like "dude let me know when I go.. yawn". There's no reason to do this book keeping if weapon speed isn't calculated and spells casting time doesn't mean much. Man in AD&D we roll a d6 once per round and initiative matters each round. weapon speed comes up on ties. The end. This represents the chaotic nature of combat well IMO. It's also fast.

4. I absolutely hate bounded accuracy. lame concept imo. I don't want to be a huge bag of h.p.'s still fighting  orcs at level 12. I want to advance in scope, skill and power. This advancement to me has never been an illusion. An orc is a mook. A earth elemental is a foe for a high level character. +10 over 20 levels of play doesn't appeal to me in the least. Actual math does not equal to an illusion of advancement. Nor to reward. My 1st edition fighter can swing once per level of his experience above and beyond his regular attacks at orcs. In next they nickle and dime me- making a mook fight long and drawn out and extra boring. if I have to do math I'd prefer to do it here( BAB) rather than needless initiative wrangling that says a greatsword is just the same as a dagger in speed. from an AD&D pov. This makes no sense.

5. The next game design feels like a poor effort to dumb down 3e and add auto self healing- H.D. healing needs to go. This would increase the leathality a bit. Dang, choose a direction- back into the past to a 3e design entirely or AD&D - or forward to a new school design. This feels sadly as if it has no identity. I do not like how h.d. healing is represented as written. I would drop it entirely.

6. The so called modular approach of next still leaves alot of playstyles out in the cold. As of yet we have seen no modules to fulfil the need to reconcile our playstyles into one game we can play together. What next does do to represent an AD&D style of play AD&D does'nt do better? Why would I play what does badly- what my game of choice does well? Sorry, my finances are hard earned- to hard to buy a game that doesn't cut the mustard for anyone out of the box. It's not worth me learning a system very few are going to be happy with right off at the get go. My group has been together for 15 years, better to rock the system we like. Honsetly-If I want to include a 4e player to my game and adjust for his playstyle at my table Next currently won't support this. It's not anymore inclusive than AD&D.

7. I wont even get into spells-  They need reworking, nuff said.

I cannot see a valid reason to extensively playtest what I see as "no fun" for a couple of years when I can rather be having a great time playing what I do like with my group. Life is to short for all that. The hell with it. I'll download, read, wait and see. "If" I feel like it. I wasted a year of my life on this crap. Naturally I'll not post about it if I lose intrest.
 
Now I do not not post this with the assumption of the one true wayism frame of mind or badwrongfun toward those who disagree with my playstyle. I think your playstyle choice is just as valid as any other. I made this post not to edition war. I simply am trying to explain why my group requested that I return to AD&D and run a P.F. game for them rather than force Next on them anymore. I see how Pheonix can write that it doesn't appeal to his old school group. Ditto.  



This is even better expressed.

Well said and thank you for sharing your opinon Brightmantle.

I get the impression we like the same kinds of things in D&D, which makes me confused about your recent adoption of Pathfinder, is there something I'm missing in that modernist mess of superhero play? 
To me, 5e is like an improve version of 3.5e. So there no moving back, just moving forward.

 



I think it's important to keep in mind that, if this is still true when Next releases (and I think I agree that it is true at the moment) it is not just the 4th Edition fans that will not buy.

All the old AD&D and 2nd Edition grognards like me won't be buying either.

And given that Pathfinder seems to have a firm grip on many of the 3rd Edition and 3.5 fans that leaves very, very few D&D players who will actually be buying this new edition.   

I agree. P.F. has a very loyal player base. Paizo also listens closely to what it's fanbase requests. I see that system as being the heavy hitter for years to come. Just being a Paizo fan is a great experience. Being a wotc fan for me is akin to having disentary.Yell


The head designers of PF respond to us on the forums constantly! How does James Jacobs find the time?

paizoCon 2013!

i still love D&D however and will divert spending towards them if they get their act together and put out something fun. 
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
I am not ready to give up my stake quite yet. I have too many problems with the other editions out there right now. 2e is too awkward and finicky. 3e is too imbalanced. 4e is too gamey, and it is balanced around combat only. The closest thing I have to a D&D game I want to run/play is WFRPG 3e. And, as much as I love that game, it is a pain to set up/clean up after. What I want is a simple pen/paper only game that is: not gamey, can be played using the theater of the mind, is balanced, is not only balanced around combat, has mechanics that focus on multiple pillars of play, and is a fantasy game by genre. Such does not exist yet. I have sci-fi games I want to play. I don't really have a fantasy game yet. So, one day. I hope the release of D&DN will be that day. There is a lot about this edition that I love. Unfortunately, it is almost as imbalanced as 3e right now.
I am not ready to give up my stake quite yet. I have too many problems with the other editions out there right now. 2e is too awkward and finicky. 3e is too imbalanced. 4e is too gamey, and it is balanced around combat only. The closest thing I have to a D&D game I want to run/play is WFRPG 3e. And, as much as I love that game, it is a pain to set up/clean up after. What I want is a simple pen/paper only game that is: not gamey, can be played using the theater of the mind, is balanced, is not only balanced around combat, has mechanics that focus on multiple pillars of play, and is a fantasy game by genre. Such does not exist yet. I have sci-fi games I want to play. I don't really have a fantasy game yet. So, one day. I hope the release of D&DN will be that day. There is a lot about this edition that I love. Unfortunately, it is almost as imbalanced as 3e right now.




This game is no where near as imbalanced as 3.5e was.  that's blatant hyperbole.

Not to give any credit to them but even in your own flawed calculations it was a 7DPR difference.  That is in no way as imbalanced as 3.5e or even as imbalanced as pathfinder is, and pathfinder is somewhat improved in the imbalance region.

it's a blatant falsehood that you perpetuate by using slanted numbers to forcibly make the wizard look better.

However I degress from the actual topic of this thread.  We have a thread where we were discussing that, and we should move the discussion back there if you'd like to continue discussing the subject.

EDIT: actually blatant flasehood is not the correct term to use.  I'd actually say it is an as of yet unsubstantiated claim waiting for the proper math to be done to verify if it holds water. 
The dropping of the warlord is simply one more thing that speaks to how the designers are not trying to recapture the feel of 4E.

Of course not (for obvious reasons), 5th Ed will not be anything like a 4.5.

Warlord will be back.  But, like everything else recycled from 4E, it's going to be thinly obfuscated by barely-fitting label from the 2E or 3E era.




And that's why D&D Next is not for me.  Overall, I'm happy with 4th and have no desire to move on.  I just hope Wizards understands it is the future and not 1980-1999. The two major crowds of D&D are Pathfinder and 4th- both are heavily built onto the grid map.  If they churn out a core grid-less rule set they had better make sure they make it their own and not a Frakenstein rule set that pleases no one.

I am not happy with 4e.


It did a lot of good things, but also has a lot of bad. I think 4e is better (for my playstyle) than any other edition of D&D, but it still isn't quite there.


I was hoping 5e would be an evolution of the game, learning lessons from 4e's mistakes but also carrying forward many of the improvements.


Instead 5e seems...blah.


I most likely won't be playing 5e. I just need to find some alternative...


I think it's important to keep in mind that, if this is still true when Next releases (and I think I agree that it is true at the moment) it is not just the 4th Edition fans that will not buy.

All the old AD&D and 2nd Edition grognards like me won't be buying either.

And given that Pathfinder seems to have a firm grip on many of the 3rd Edition and 3.5 fans that leaves very, very few D&D players who will actually be buying this new edition.   



Well I glad you represent the 4th edition fans, the old AD&D and 2nd editions, the
Pathfinder fans, and tell us how they all think of 5e. 

AD&D and 2nd edition people won't buy it
3.0 and 3.5e all went to Pathfinders
4th edition won't buy it just because it's not 4.5

What the whole point of making 5e if every edition fan is against it? 





It's not just a question of edition loyalty. Ask yourself, what does this new D&D have that's supposed to make me want to play it?

It seems like every incarnation up until now has offered up something new to make it interesting. AD&D 2 gave us Bards that weren't an arcane proto-prestige class, Non-Weapon Proficiencies, and a host of fantastic settings. (Not the best commercial decision but still neat.) 3rd edition removed many of the arcane limitations on play- you could have Dwarven Paladins and Halfling Bards and a Fighter who knows how to sew (if you really want to waste skill points, but still), wizards weren't fragile at first level anymore, a unified core mechanic, etc. 4th Edition offered a host of new play options for martial and magical and divine characters alike, along with new races, a more robust encounter building system, etc. I've found something to like about all editions thusfar because they've all got something they offer.

But Next so far looks like it's going to offer me less, not more. I'm being asked to give up a lot of the options I had in 4e, in exchange for... I dunno, I guess advantage/disadvantage is kinda neat, I'm not decided about apprentice levels, the "interaction pillar" stuff might be worth watching out for.

Granted, a good deal of this is a failure of marketing. At least part of the point of this playtest is marketing and building word of mouth, but there's been no sizzle.

But I also can't help but wonder if the "let's try and please everyone" (or even "let's please everyone except the 4th edition fans") is doomed to create something bland- because anything one segment of the audience might really love is something that another segment might really hate. You end up with just the compromises that nobody is terribly crazy about but which they don't hate either.
@ Johnmatheson- I think perhaps yes. I do understand your point of view on pathfinder as it is akin to the 3.5 system and on the surface may seem to be a powergamers min maxers system. What I have recently learned through experience is it is much different. The feats, many spells, and classes have been changed vastly. This changes the gamebalance some.The gritty playstyle we are used to can easily be supported by P.F. via the 4d6 drop the lowest character gen, (sound familiar?) and a proper control of the monetary treasure which is way easy. The leathality can be increased if you simply use the cr's and apl. to make fights a challenge in accordance to your style.
    Now that said the un politically correct game we had in AD&D is exactly what Golorion is including demons, devils, Azmodeaus, dark goddesses that breed with monsters, magic items, intelligent items, and even a trollop, streetwalker chart ala' G.G.'s DMG. It actually feels like the natural progression from AD&D to me though it is rules heavy in comparison. I actually like what Paizo did with 3.5, it makes the game playable for my group. believe me you might say that p.c.'s seem over powered till I wreck your party with ease just by knowing how to use the APL system and my experience as a G.M. You might give it a try John. The wiki is completely free after all. Hence no cost to you. BTW  you will see that I am still playing TSR AD&D as well- this is my favorite system. My players like a new school fix with an old school feel. hence Pathfinder two times per week and AD&D 2 times per week.

Edit: I forgot to speak to the varied xp. progression tables that allow me to make the level system run like AD&D with a slower progression and long term gameplay for character development. This is awesome. 3e was always way to fast for me and lead to quick leveling, I hate this. I want to develope the character over time. Again this feels like AD&D to me. Another selling point of Pathfinder for an old schooler.
To me, 5e is like an improve version of 3.5e. So there no moving back, just moving forward.

 



I think it's important to keep in mind that, if this is still true when Next releases (and I think I agree that it is true at the moment) it is not just the 4th Edition fans that will not buy.

All the old AD&D and 2nd Edition grognards like me won't be buying either.

And given that Pathfinder seems to have a firm grip on many of the 3rd Edition and 3.5 fans that leaves very, very few D&D players who will actually be buying this new edition.   



Many loyal pathfinder fans want a more basic game not dependent on magic items.  Pathfinder is only good for high magic monty haul campaigns.


I disagree. My players have very few magic items.
typecasting systems like that as "fact" is not beneficial. If it were factual, then my players would all have boatloads of magic items and gold. They don't even have enough gold to raise a single fleet. 



I am not arguing you have that experience.  But, how do you fight CR appropriate critters without all the magic items.  Did you have to reassign CR to the monsters?  I can see doing that for some of the adventures I write myself.  But I could not imagine doing that for one of their adventure paths.  I love writing my own adventures, but I have learned a few things from their adventure paths over the last couple of years. 


It's not just a question of edition loyalty. Ask yourself, what does this new D&D have that's supposed to make me want to play it?



I'm playing it for  the new fans. The system seems easy to adapt for most D&D fans and
easy to learn for new comers. 

If we support this edition and it becomes successful, we are going to have a bunch of new fans. 

I was going to discuss how easy it was to make a character in 5e without looking at the book, but
I think I rather make a thread about it. Be right back. 


This game is no where near as imbalanced as 3.5e was.  that's blatant hyperbole.



We will have to agree to disagree. 

Not to give any credit to them but even in your own flawed calculations it was a 7DPR difference.  That is in no way as imbalanced as 3.5e or even as imbalanced as pathfinder is, and pathfinder is somewhat improved in the imbalance region.



7 DPR at 32 rounds. With more accurate math it came to 5 DPR at 32 rounds and 10 DPR at 49 rounds. And focusing on the smaller number, while pretending to ignore the larger number implicated by that smaller number, is disingenuous. 5 DPR at 32 rounds is 160 more damage. 10 DPR at 49 rounds is 490 damage. That, also, is an expression of the imbalance only in the second most balanced region of the game's mechanics. It is also an area of the game where the wizard should be flat out inferior, as that number of rounds represents the extended rates of time at which the fighter's strengths are supposed to be showing themselves (but don't).   

it's a blatant falsehood that you perpetuate by using slanted numbers to forcibly make the wizard look better.

However I degress from the actual topic of this thread.  We have a thread where we were discussing that, and we should move the discussion back there if you'd like to continue discussing the subject.

EDIT: actually blatant flasehood is not the correct term to use.  I'd actually say it is an as of yet unsubstantiated claim waiting for the proper math to be done to verify if it holds water. 



Again, we will have to agree to disagree. The type of assumptions you want to inject into the calculations amount to little more than academic dishonesty from my perspective. What is more, and I don't mean to sound harsh when I say this, but your opinion is somewhat irrelevant. You are not one of those players who cares deeply about balance. You have said as much in the past. You care to some extent, but not the same extent as someone like me. It is not you that must be convinced for my demographic to buy this game, it is me. And, given the current balance of the game, my demographic is going to be lost. Also, while you argue against my position in terms of semantic numerology, you actually don't mind the kind of changes I want to see made. Which means that on the grounds of semantic disagreement (founded out of substantial differences in paradigm that shall not be overcome via discussion) you are fighting against changes you don't actually mind, but changes that, if not made, will cost this game a substantial percentage of its player-base.

I would suggest that you consider your desired goal and modify who/what you structure your defense against appropriately  When I start asking for things that would actually damage your enjoyment of this game, maybe then you should continue your crusade against my position. Otherwise, all you are doing is helping to fracture consumer bases that could stand happily together given a particular set of changes. 

Unless, of course, I don't understand you. If the changes I want would actually stop you from being able to enjoy this edition, have at it. Then I fully support your right to engage in philosophical warfare via my perception of this game. 

I do not, however, share your position. So, one way or the other, we will have to agree to disagree. Right now, all I am seeing is Caster's and Caddies. What I want is Dungeons and Dragons. Thankfully, I think this game could become Dungeons and Dragons with some minor tweaks. 


This game is no where near as imbalanced as 3.5e was.  that's blatant hyperbole.



We will have to agree to disagree. 

Not to give any credit to them but even in your own flawed calculations it was a 7DPR difference.  That is in no way as imbalanced as 3.5e or even as imbalanced as pathfinder is, and pathfinder is somewhat improved in the imbalance region.



7 DPR at 32 rounds. With more accurate math it came to 5 DPR at 32 rounds and 10 DPR at 49 rounds. And focusing on the smaller number, while pretending to ignore the larger number implicated by that smaller number, is disingenuous. 5 DPR at 32 rounds is 160 more damage. 10 DPR at 49 rounds is 490 damage. That, also, is an expression of the imbalance only in the second most balanced region of the game's mechanics. It is also an area of the game where the wizard should be flat out inferior, as that number of rounds represents the extended rates of time at which the fighter's strengths are supposed to be showing themselves (but don't).   

it's a blatant falsehood that you perpetuate by using slanted numbers to forcibly make the wizard look better.

However I degress from the actual topic of this thread.  We have a thread where we were discussing that, and we should move the discussion back there if you'd like to continue discussing the subject.

EDIT: actually blatant flasehood is not the correct term to use.  I'd actually say it is an as of yet unsubstantiated claim waiting for the proper math to be done to verify if it holds water. 



Again, we will have to agree to disagree. The type of assumptions you want to inject into the calculations amount to little more than academic dishonesty from my perspective. What is more, and I don't mean to sound harsh when I say this, but your opinion is somewhat irrelevant. You are not one of those players who cares deeply about balance. You have said as much in the past. You care to some extent, but not the same extent as someone like me. It is not you that must be convinced for my demographic to buy this game, it is me. And, given the current balance of the game, my demographic is going to be lost. Also, while you argue against my position in terms of semantic numerology, you actually don't mind the kind of changes I want to see made. Which means that on the grounds of semantic disagreement (founded out of substantial differences in paradigm that shall not be overcome via discussion) you are fighting against changes you don't actually mind, but changes that, if not made, will cost this game a substantial percentage of its player-base.

I would suggest that you consider your desired goal and modify who/what you structure your defense against inappropriately  When I start asking for things that would actually damage your enjoyment of this game, maybe then you should continue your crusade against my position. Otherwise, all you are doing is helping to fracture consumer bases that could stand happily together given a particular set of changes. 

Unless, of course, I don't understand you. If the changes I want would actually stop you from being able to enjoy this edition, have at it. Then I fully support your right to engage in philosophical warfare via my perception of this game. 

I do not, however, share your position. So, one way or the other, we will have to agree to disagree. Right now, all I am seeing is Caster's and Caddies. What I want is Dungeons and Dragons. Thankfully, I think this game could become Dungeons and Dragons with some minor tweaks. 





I dislike that you represent an all spells to combat wizard and say he is better at everything as compared to the fighter even though the wizard you represent can only be better at combat, and not at everything.  I also just dislike seeing dishonest math where the accuracy of the wizard is embelished while the accuracy of the fighter is brought far from the actual average AC.  Not to mention you leaving out a major power of the fighter in his feats.  You basically take into account a bulk of the wizards features and then leave out a bulk of the fighters.

You are trying to make a point that they don't even care about balance anymore in the design of the system.  Making statements that I feel are hyperbolic at best (this is more unbalanced than 3.5e or casters and caddies) and the variables you're using to say it are shaky at best. The absolute truth is that I'd just like to see the math to determine if it is too far out of whack for my liking and you're seemingly better at it than I am.  

Like I kept saying I'm not doubting your mathematical capabilities.  In fact I think your mathematical capabilities are excellent which is why I'm not really even questioning your end results.  You've already proven your chops in this area, and that you won't pull any bull with the actual equations or math work.  I just think the variables you are using are inordinately slanted towards making the wizard look way better than he actually is.  You are leaving a bunch out of the fighter's numbers that would benefit his DPR numbers and you are leaving a bunch out of the numbers for the wizard that would bring down his DPR.
But it's not just DPR, is it? It's SoDs and the ability of some spells to end encounters before they begin (or at least, not granting this ability to the non-casters.) Granted, we haven't seen much playtesting of the system at the higher levels, but that's something they really should have started doing Day 1, knowing that it had been a problem in the past.
I just think the variables you are using are inordinately slanted towards making the wizard look way better than he actually is.  You are leaving a bunch out of the fighter's numbers that would benefit his DPR numbers and you are leaving a bunch out of the numbers for the wizard that would bring down his DPR.



That would be a problem that most design of experiments try to eliminate.

It would be better for you to perhaps provide the two archetypes measured out at similar power-levels and let him do the math.

Confirmation bias tends to get in the way of objective experiments when the experimenter is advocating for a particular position.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson


So the engaging complexity of 4e combat isnt there, and neither is the loose, subjective feel of magic in classic D&D. So in that example 5e is the absolute worst of all worlds. Boring simple combat on one hand, imagination-gutting magic-nerfing on the other.



Well i am parto of a local group of multi system players.
Meaning we chose the game system/edition based on what kind of campaign we plan to play.

But at the point that DnDNext is now i don't see it doing any of our campaigns better then a system already out there.
It tries to be very general accpetable for any kind of campaign, but we rather chose a edition/system that is Good at doing a certain playstyle instead of one that is just acceptable.

 
 
  I also just dislike seeing dishonest math where the accuracy of the wizard is embelished while the accuracy of the fighter is brought far from the actual average AC.  Not to mention you leaving out a major power of the fighter in his feats.  You basically take into account a bulk of the wizards features and then leave out a bulk of the fighters.



I notice this as soon I saw the math. 

Careful Strike makes the fighter hit almost contantly so that more DPS.
Cleave also gives more dps if facing group of monsters. 
Weapon Mastery basically give you advantage on your damage roll. 

Combat Surge gives the fighet an second attack and double his expertise dice. 
So that +2-12 or +7 to hit gives him more DPS. 


Let's see what a 11lv Fighter with 18 Str and a +3 weapon can do. 
First Attack: +10(+3) 1d12+7(13)
Second Attack(combat surge) +10(+7) 3d12+7 (27)
Total: 40 damage

What the 11lv wizard got? 
6lv: Disintegate 17d6 (38) and it's a hit or miss. 
5lv: Cone of Cold: 6d8 (27) and 13 for half damage. 

As far as I care, this seems balance to me. 
I really don't care how it balance from here, because at lv 17-20, wizards should be
able to challenge gods. 


I dislike that you represent an all spells to combat wizard and say he is better at everything as compared to the fighter even though the wizard you represent can only be better at combat, and not at everything.  I also just dislike seeing dishonest math where the accuracy of the wizard is embelished while the accuracy of the fighter is brought far from the actual average AC.  Not to mention you leaving out a major power of the fighter in his feats.  You basically take into account a bulk of the wizards features and then leave out a bulk of the fighters.



What I represented was not an all spells to combat wizard. What I represented was the potential of a wizard with a little less than 1/4th of their memorization list used to memorize combat spells. Where the wizard actually showed his worth in any given day would be where the wizard wants to show his strength; in other words, where the wizard needs to show his strength. The ability to potentially be better at any given facet, and to actually be better in the facet where you need to be better, equals the ability to be better overall. Feats can be applied to multiple different classes. And, to be honest, what I see as being dishonest is your position. Again, we will have to agree to disagree. I understand that we are seeing things from different positions, and as an artifact of that we each see the other as occupying a dishonest position (when neither of us are actually trying to be dishonest), but we are not going to see eye to eye on this. Our paradigms are too different. 

You are trying to make a point that they don't even care about balance anymore in the design of the system.  Making statements that I feel are hyperbolic at best (this is more unbalanced than 3.5e or casters and caddies) and the variables you're using to say it are shaky at best. The absolute truth is that I'd just like to see the math to determine if it is too far out of whack for my liking and you're seemingly better at it than I am.



I actually said this is virtually as unbalanced as 3.5e, as once again this is an edition where the wizard can potentially show up the fighter in every possible way. I don't see that as hyperbole. I do not, however, claim that they no longer care about balance. That claims some sort of access to the intentionallity of the designers. I have no access. If I thought they didn't care at all, I wouldn't be posting. It would be a waste of my time. I am hoping that they do care, and that as a result of my posts I can change the direction of the game so that I can enjoy it as well. As for who is better at what, I am just another playtester. I am not even a math major. I don't post out of an ego. I post out of an agenda. I try to be honest (both in my data and my goal). That is the best I can do.   

Like I kept saying I'm not doubting your mathematical capabilities.  In fact I think your mathematical capabilities are excellent which is why I'm not really even questioning your end results.  You've already proven your chops in this area, and that you won't pull any bull with the actual equations or math work.  I just think the variables you are using are inordinately slanted towards making the wizard look way better than he actually is.  You are leaving a bunch out of the fighter's numbers that would benefit his DPR numbers and you are leaving a bunch out of the numbers for the wizard that would bring down his DPR.



Look, if I could do this math faster than I actually can, I would tell you to choose the variables and I would post the results for your choice as well. My refusal to do so is because a) I don't believe your variables lead to an honest result and because b) it takes too much time to run all these equations for me to run equations that I think are frivolous. I do all the math by hand. I don't use spreadsheets. I am busy studying for my first field exam so I can qualify for my PhD. I literally just don't have the time! I spend more time on this forum than I should.

All I can tell you is how I perceive things. I am not being hyperbolic. I am accurately describing my perception. I am also trying to formulate my input so that it will create a game that is appealing to both my tastes and the tastes of others. I do my best! 

All I know is that right now, this game is not appealing to my tastes. It can with minor tweaks. I still have hope. But, the designers have to care enough to make the tweaks I need to be made. I really hope that they do. Care, I mean...

EDIT: Sleeps, if you want me to run the numbers on two specific builds, build the two builds. Then, tell me what sort of encounters they face for how many rounds a day. Give me the specifications you desire. I can not promise to get to the math soon. I am a very busy man. But, if you PM me the request (so that I will not lose track of it given time) I will (eventually) post my findings. I will post my thoughts about the exercise (and my thoughts might be that the exercise is meaningless). But, so long as it is not too complicated to be performed given a few hours of me fiddling around with math, I will run the calculations (and if such is the case I will tell you what the problem is and ask you to find a way around it to make my life easier). I do, after all, find such exercises stimulating. I know... there is something wrong with me. Who finds running math fun!? Even more strange, what sort of English Lit. major finds math fun. But, there it is...
...stuff about feats, and then:...
I really don't care how it balance from here, because at lv 17-20, wizards should be
able to challenge gods. 



1) I ran the numbers for someone with feats taken into account. First of all, while things were far more balanced than a mere examination of the baseline, they were only balanced because of the use of 1 particular feat (riposte). Only two feats add that sort of capability: riposte and combat superiority. Those feats are not fighter specific. Other classes can benefit form them as well. If the assumption is that a fighter must take one of those feats to be balanced, those feats should become fighter only class features. 

2) The notion that wizards should be able to challenge gods, but it doesn't matter if other classes can, leads to a game I do not want to play. Either everyone should be able to challenge a god or nobody should be able to challenge a god.  
I am not ready to give up my stake quite yet. I have too many problems with the other editions out there right now. 2e is too awkward and finicky. 3e is too imbalanced. 4e is too gamey, and it is balanced around combat only. The closest thing I have to a D&D game I want to run/play is WFRPG 3e. And, as much as I love that game, it is a pain to set up/clean up after. What I want is a simple pen/paper only game that is: not gamey, can be played using the theater of the mind, is balanced, is not only balanced around combat, has mechanics that focus on multiple pillars of play, and is a fantasy game by genre. Such does not exist yet. I have sci-fi games I want to play. I don't really have a fantasy game yet. So, one day. I hope the release of D&DN will be that day. There is a lot about this edition that I love. Unfortunately, it is almost as imbalanced as 3e right now.




This game is no where near as imbalanced as 3.5e was.  that's blatant hyperbole.

Not to give any credit to them but even in your own flawed calculations it was a 7DPR difference.  That is in no way as imbalanced as 3.5e or even as imbalanced as pathfinder is, and pathfinder is somewhat improved in the imbalance region.

it's a blatant falsehood that you perpetuate by using slanted numbers to forcibly make the wizard look better.

However I degress from the actual topic of this thread.  We have a thread where we were discussing that, and we should move the discussion back there if you'd like to continue discussing the subject.

EDIT: actually blatant flasehood is not the correct term to use.  I'd actually say it is an as of yet unsubstantiated claim waiting for the proper math to be done to verify if it holds water. 



And when I was looking at the calculations done earlier I thought CD under estimated the value of the wizards multi-targetting, in order to keep them more in-line. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


2) The notion that wizards should be able to challenge gods, but it doesn't matter if other classes can, leads to a game I do not want to play. Either everyone should be able to challenge a god or nobody should be able to challenge a god.  



We can only get so far with numbers, why not playtest it?

A 20lv fighter vs Asmodeus

A 20lv wizard vs Asmodeus

Asmodeus is the closest thing to a god, at least an evil god. 

Each character got full knowledge of what Asmodeus can do since this is like their final end game boss.

I'll try to make the characters soon. 

Edit: I realize it is going to take a party to defeat this guy. 
I spent more time trying to think ways to solo this guy with the fighter then I did with the
wizard. 



2) The notion that wizards should be able to challenge gods, but it doesn't matter if other classes can, leads to a game I do not want to play. Either everyone should be able to challenge a god or nobody should be able to challenge a god.  



We can only get so far with numbers, why not playtest it?

A 20lv fighter vs Asmodeus

A 20lv wizard vs Asmodeus

Asmodeus is the closest thing to a god, at least an evil god. 

Each character got full knowledge of what Asmodeus can do since this is like their final end game boss.

I'll try to make the characters soon. 

Edit: I realize it is going to take a party to defeat this guy. 
I spent more time trying to think ways to solo this guy with the fighter then I did with the
wizard. 





Actually, after 2-4 rounds a solo wizard could statistically speaking beat Asmodeus... well, maybe. Infernal domination will be a problem. But, a smart wizard will use anti-magic zone to stop that problem. So, yea, 2-4 rounds. 

Actually, after 2-4 rounds a solo wizard could statistically speaking beat Asmodeus...



If the wizard was buffed up and keep his distance, he got a pretty fair shot at him. 

The fighter on the other hand is going to have the toughest fight of his life. 

This fighter I made was pretty much a min/max fighter built for this encounter. 
I mean his whole feats, class features, stats, and items built to have a chance at this guy. 

Here his stats

hp 240    Str 20(29), Dex 11, Con 20, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 9
AC 22 (24 with +2 armor/shield, 26 with +3 armor/shield) 

+15 +1 silver longsword 1d8+10

Important Item
Belt of Storm Gaint's Strength
Boot of Haste


How combat is going to go down.
first the figther needs to get close to Asmodeus
Then spend one expertise dice to avoid being controlled by Asmodeus.
Then spend another one ot avoid being feared by Asmodeus  
Hit him with a big deadly strike attack for 33 damage. (33 damage total)
Shield slam Asmodeus with combat surge for extra 2d6(7) damage. (43 damage total)
Because he gets disadvantage on his first attack, you can riposte him for 14 damage. (57)
Second attack have at least 60% of hitting you, you can only hit 5 of those hits
before risk of beiing auto kill. Not including being hit by his demon buddies or his spells.  

Now you repeat this for about 5-6 rounds, you can kill this guy. 

Potion of barkskin and some type of immunity to cold and fire can help greatly in this fight. 
And a potion of heroism because a +2 save can help you avoid being controlled on the first round.




If it isn't good for most of the pre-3rd'ers, and it isn't good for most of the 4th'ers, just who the heck is on board with this thing???


I am very much on board with DDN.  I find it to be by far the most streamlined and easy to apply ruleset among the D&D field.  The rules step back out of the way and allow the adventure happening at the table flow with significantly fewer of the stilted and awkward results that other editions sometimes have.

While character options are somewhat limited in the playtest, I fully expect that to be a result of the medium.  The framework is set up for a vast array of character build options, and when fully fleshed out has the potential for more character types than any prior edition.

I am very happy with the playtests and have faith that Mearls and Co will deliver a rock-solid game that will serve my table well for years to come.
 

2) The notion that wizards should be able to challenge gods, but it doesn't matter if other classes can, leads to a game I do not want to play. Either everyone should be able to challenge a god or nobody should be able to challenge a god.  



We can only get so far with numbers, why not playtest it?

A 20lv fighter vs Asmodeus

A 20lv wizard vs Asmodeus

Asmodeus is the closest thing to a god, at least an evil god. 

Each character got full knowledge of what Asmodeus can do since this is like their final end game boss.

I'll try to make the characters soon. 

Edit: I realize it is going to take a party to defeat this guy. 
I spent more time trying to think ways to solo this guy with the fighter then I did with the
wizard. 





Actually, after 2-4 rounds a solo wizard could statistically speaking beat Asmodeus... well, maybe. Infernal domination will be a problem. But, a smart wizard will use anti-magic zone to stop that problem. So, yea, 2-4 rounds. 



so turn 1 for asmodeous leaving out infernal domination:
2 rod attacks, summons a pit fiend,
pit fiend's turn
he attacks with constricting tail and two morning stars, and casts fireball ground zero on you.

can the wizard make it through that, and can he kill asmo the next turn?

so turn 1 for asmodeous leaving out infernal domination:
2 rod attacks, summons a pit fiend,
pit fiend's turn
he attacks with constricting tail and two morning stars, and casts fireball ground zero on you.

can the wizard make it through that, and can he kill asmo the next turn?



infernal domination have a 10ft range and he can only summon non-arch devil. 
I'm pretty sure a pit fiend is an arch devil since they are pretty high class devils. 

That why I said if the wizard kept his distance, he got a shot at this. 


so turn 1 for asmodeous leaving out infernal domination:
2 rod attacks, summons a pit fiend,
pit fiend's turn
he attacks with constricting tail and two morning stars, and casts fireball ground zero on you.

can the wizard make it through that, and can he kill asmo the next turn?



infernal domination have a 10ft range and he can only summon non-arch devil. 
I'm pretty sure a pit fiend is an arch devil since they are pretty high class devils. 

That why I said if the wizard kept his distance, he got a shot at this. 





Devil: Pit Fiend
Large Fiend (Devil)

not an archdevil.

in my estimation asmo would be an arch devil but he isn't.  technically ther is not yet a kind of devil asmo cannot summon.  Technically asmo can summon himself... 




Devil: Pit Fiend
Large Fiend (Devil)

not an archdevil.

in my estimation asmo would be an arch devil but he isn't.  technically ther is not yet a kind of devil asmo cannot summon.  Technically asmo can summon himself... 




forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Archdevil

The lord of the first layer has the lowest rank of the nine archdevils, while the lord of the ninth layer has the highest rank. While the demons of the Abyss answer only to their own basic instincts, every single devil, at least in theory, answers to the Lord of the Ninth, Asmodeus.

Edit: 

Bel is a former pit fiend of great power who controls Avernus.

This proves that pit fiends are archdevils. That means this summon ability can
only work on devils that are lower then pit fiends. 




2) The notion that wizards should be able to challenge gods, but it doesn't matter if other classes can, leads to a game I do not want to play. Either everyone should be able to challenge a god or nobody should be able to challenge a god.  



We can only get so far with numbers, why not playtest it?

A 20lv fighter vs Asmodeus

A 20lv wizard vs Asmodeus

Asmodeus is the closest thing to a god, at least an evil god. 

Each character got full knowledge of what Asmodeus can do since this is like their final end game boss.

I'll try to make the characters soon. 

Edit: I realize it is going to take a party to defeat this guy. 
I spent more time trying to think ways to solo this guy with the fighter then I did with the
wizard. 





Actually, after 2-4 rounds a solo wizard could statistically speaking beat Asmodeus... well, maybe. Infernal domination will be a problem. But, a smart wizard will use anti-magic zone to stop that problem. So, yea, 2-4 rounds. 



so turn 1 for asmodeous leaving out infernal domination:
2 rod attacks, summons a pit fiend,
pit fiend's turn
he attacks with constricting tail and two morning stars, and casts fireball ground zero on you.

can the wizard make it through that, and can he kill asmo the next turn?


Fighter
Human Fighter 20
N Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +9; Senses Perception +10
Defense
AC 33, touch 14, flat-footed 29 (+14 armor, +3 Dex, +5 natural, +1 dodge)
hp 178 (20d10+60)
Fort +14, Ref +10, Will +6 (+5 vs. fear)
Defensive Abilities bravery +5; DR 5/—
Offense
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +5 Greatsword +36/+31/+26/+21 (2d6+20/17-20/x3)
Special Attacks weapon training abilities (heavy blades +4, light blades +3, pole arms +1, spears +2)
Statistics
Str 21, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8
Base Atk +20; CMB +25 (+27 Bull Rushing); CMD 39 (41 vs. Bull Rush)
Feats Bull Rush Strike, Cleave, Combat Reflexes (4 AoO/round), Crippling Critical (DC 30), Critical Focus, Critical Versatility (Crippling Critical), Deadly Finish, Dodge, Great Cleave, Greater Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Greater Weapon Specialization (Greatsword), Hammer the Gap, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Critical (Greatsword), Improved Initiative, Lunge, Power Attack -6/+12, Staggering Critical (DC 30), Surge of Success, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Weapon Specialization (Greatsword)
Traits Reactionary, Xa Hoi Soldier
Skills Acrobatics +12, Climb +17, Escape Artist +12, Fly +2, Intimidate +12, Perception +10, Ride +2, Stealth +2, Survival +5, Swim +15
Languages Common
SQ weapon mastery (greatsword)
Other Gear +5 Full plate, +5 Greatsword, Amulet of natural armor +5, 150 GP
Special Abilities
Bravery +5 (Ex) +5 to Will save vs. Fear
Bull Rush Strike Critical hit's confirmation roll is a Bull Rush maneuver check.
Cleave If you hit a foe, attack an adjacent target at the same attack bonus but take -2 AC.
Combat Reflexes (4 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Crippling Critical (DC 30) Critical Hits halves target's speed for 1 minute (Fort part).
Critical Focus +4 to confirm critical hits.
Damage Reduction (5/-) You have Damage Reduction against all attacks.
Deadly Finish Foes you knock out must make a Fort save or die
Hammer the Gap With a full-attack action, each hit against the same opponent deals extra damage
Improved Bull Rush You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when bull rushing.
Lunge Can increase reach by 5 ft, but take -2 to AC for 1 rd.
Power Attack -6/+12 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Staggering Critical (DC 30) Critical hit staggers target
Surge of Success Confirmed critical or natural 20 on save grants you a +2 bonus on one roll your next turn.
Vital Strike Standard action: x2 weapon damage dice.
Weapon Mastery (Greatsword) (Ex) Chosen weapon has an improved critical multiplier, always confirms criticals, and cannot be disarmed.
Weapon Training (Blades, Heavy) +4 (Ex) +4 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades
Weapon Training (Blades, Light) +3 (Ex) +3 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Light Blades
Weapon Training (Pole Arms) +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Pole Arms
Weapon Training (Spears) +2 (Ex) +2 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Spears

"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
What happened to uniting all players? What happened to modules and options? Seriously, what happeend?


They haven't yet tried.  No, really, they have not yet tried to unite the editions and provide modules and options to do so in a playtest packet. 



I suppose (which is why I'm still here), but I'm not holding my breath.


Considering that we're over a year into the development and it's still in a very early stage, I'd recommend breathing in the interim.

But seriously, people need to understand just how early they let us peek behind the curtain.  I'm quite sure that almost everyone posting in this thread doesn't fully appreciate just how big of a deal it was that we were involved at the stage we were, how different this is from basically any other game design process of even remotely the same scale.  Really, this is an endeavor that is not playing by the normal rules, and judging it on those rules will necessarily have it come up short.



Really? After they repeatedly have said that the core/basic is almost done and all that's left is a little tweaking of the classes?

They've got parts of it set in stone now. How is it still 'early'? I'm not seeing it. The most fundamental things about the game thwart the 4E play style. How do they expect us to get on board with this thing? Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


Really? After they repeatedly have said that the core/basic is almost done and all that's left is a little tweaking of the classes?

They've got parts of it set in stone now. How is it still 'early'? I'm not seeing it. The most fundamental things about the game thwart the 4E play style. How do they expect us to get on board with this thing?


They always said they wanted a simple, robust core to build off of. This game would be a good introduction to roleplaying games for a novice.

Start small, iron out the kinks and build from there.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson

Start small, iron out the kinks and build from there.



Then slam it with so many house rules that you can make a book out of it. 


This game is no where near as imbalanced as 3.5e was.  that's blatant hyperbole.



We will have to agree to disagree. 

Not to give any credit to them but even in your own flawed calculations it was a 7DPR difference.  That is in no way as imbalanced as 3.5e or even as imbalanced as pathfinder is, and pathfinder is somewhat improved in the imbalance region.



7 DPR at 32 rounds. With more accurate math it came to 5 DPR at 32 rounds and 10 DPR at 49 rounds. And focusing on the smaller number, while pretending to ignore the larger number implicated by that smaller number, is disingenuous. 5 DPR at 32 rounds is 160 more damage. 10 DPR at 49 rounds is 490 damage. That, also, is an expression of the imbalance only in the second most balanced region of the game's mechanics. It is also an area of the game where the wizard should be flat out inferior, as that number of rounds represents the extended rates of time at which the fighter's strengths are supposed to be showing themselves (but don't).   

it's a blatant falsehood that you perpetuate by using slanted numbers to forcibly make the wizard look better.

However I degress from the actual topic of this thread.  We have a thread where we were discussing that, and we should move the discussion back there if you'd like to continue discussing the subject.

EDIT: actually blatant flasehood is not the correct term to use.  I'd actually say it is an as of yet unsubstantiated claim waiting for the proper math to be done to verify if it holds water. 



Again, we will have to agree to disagree. The type of assumptions you want to inject into the calculations amount to little more than academic dishonesty from my perspective. What is more, and I don't mean to sound harsh when I say this, but your opinion is somewhat irrelevant. You are not one of those players who cares deeply about balance. You have said as much in the past. You care to some extent, but not the same extent as someone like me. It is not you that must be convinced for my demographic to buy this game, it is me. And, given the current balance of the game, my demographic is going to be lost. Also, while you argue against my position in terms of semantic numerology, you actually don't mind the kind of changes I want to see made. Which means that on the grounds of semantic disagreement (founded out of substantial differences in paradigm that shall not be overcome via discussion) you are fighting against changes you don't actually mind, but changes that, if not made, will cost this game a substantial percentage of its player-base.

I would suggest that you consider your desired goal and modify who/what you structure your defense against inappropriately  When I start asking for things that would actually damage your enjoyment of this game, maybe then you should continue your crusade against my position. Otherwise, all you are doing is helping to fracture consumer bases that could stand happily together given a particular set of changes. 

Unless, of course, I don't understand you. If the changes I want would actually stop you from being able to enjoy this edition, have at it. Then I fully support your right to engage in philosophical warfare via my perception of this game. 

I do not, however, share your position. So, one way or the other, we will have to agree to disagree. Right now, all I am seeing is Caster's and Caddies. What I want is Dungeons and Dragons. Thankfully, I think this game could become Dungeons and Dragons with some minor tweaks. 





I dislike that you represent an all spells to combat wizard and say he is better at everything as compared to the fighter even though the wizard you represent can only be better at combat, and not at everything.  I also just dislike seeing dishonest math where the accuracy of the wizard is embelished while the accuracy of the fighter is brought far from the actual average AC.  Not to mention you leaving out a major power of the fighter in his feats.  You basically take into account a bulk of the wizards features and then leave out a bulk of the fighters.

You are trying to make a point that they don't even care about balance anymore in the design of the system.  Making statements that I feel are hyperbolic at best (this is more unbalanced than 3.5e or casters and caddies) and the variables you're using to say it are shaky at best. The absolute truth is that I'd just like to see the math to determine if it is too far out of whack for my liking and you're seemingly better at it than I am.  

Like I kept saying I'm not doubting your mathematical capabilities.  In fact I think your mathematical capabilities are excellent which is why I'm not really even questioning your end results.  You've already proven your chops in this area, and that you won't pull any bull with the actual equations or math work.  I just think the variables you are using are inordinately slanted towards making the wizard look way better than he actually is.  You are leaving a bunch out of the fighter's numbers that would benefit his DPR numbers and you are leaving a bunch out of the numbers for the wizard that would bring down his DPR.



How about we build every combination of Fighter and every combination of Wizard and put them up against every monster of their level (+/- 1 to 3 levels) and see what the math shakes out? Start a thread and post your numbers and me and Cyber-Dave will be along to discuss it...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.


Really? After they repeatedly have said that the core/basic is almost done and all that's left is a little tweaking of the classes?

They've got parts of it set in stone now. How is it still 'early'? I'm not seeing it. The most fundamental things about the game thwart the 4E play style. How do they expect us to get on board with this thing?


They always said they wanted a simple, robust core to build off of. This game would be a good introduction to roleplaying games for a novice.

Start small, iron out the kinks and build from there.



... and leave out a good section of your potential customers because their play style can't be replicated with the 'simple, robust' core...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I think 5th Edition should really focus on everyone's house rules.
Let's do a survey and get everyone's house rules along with the edition they are playing.

I liked 2nd Edition because characters were easy to roll up and combat was very fast.
I liked 3rd Edition Pathfinder because the game publishing is so beautiful.
I liked 4th Edition because of the combination actions and skill system.

I will like 5th Edition because,
rolling up characters and combat will be fast.
because the publishing will be beautiful.
because the feats, spells, skills will all be exciting and unique.
because each class will be exciting and unique, each class having unique powers that contribute to the party.

I will like 5th Edition because it won't be too complex, but just complex enough to represent a needed stat to tell the fictional story.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

NovaCat, don't give up.

You can play-test yourself without needing to convince anyone to play-test with you.
I'm running White Plume Mountain right now on Kira3696.Tripod.Com
I will probably update it several days a week.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

To me, 5e is like an improve version of 3.5e. So there no moving back, just moving forward.

 



Sure, if you completely disregard all of the advances in 4th edition (you know, ignore an edition in its entirety), I guess you could see DDN as progression.  



To me, 5e is like an improve version of 3.5e. So there no moving back, just moving forward.

 



Sure, if you completely disregard all of the advances in 4th edition (you know, ignore an edition in its entirety), I guess you could see DDN as progression.  






4th is not ignored. There at will spells, encounter based abilities, HD like healing surge, and
who knows what can come back from 4e?



Sign In to post comments