Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E imbalance: Don't want to play it
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6262288" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>I want to quickly say two things before getting to the bulk of your rebuttal.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Forced movement *could* do that, but often did not. I saw quite a few fights in my time running and playing 4e where people moved enemies because they could, not because they wanted to or it was advantageous. </p><p>It'd be a lot more efficient to strip out the extra movement and allow people to add it in when the situation warranted.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In theory yes, codification doesn't prevent inspiration. In practice less so. Nothing physically stops it, but during play the numerous powers catch the attention and stops imagination. And having lots of at-will is a hindrance, as you do not want to allow a player to improvise an action equivalent to an at-will because that unbalances the game by giving creative players more at-will powers. </p><p></p><p></p><p>The problem with Page 42 is twofold. </p><p>One, it only handles damage and not any other condition. Two, the damage and lack of kicker effects makes improvising less effective, and the requirement of skill checks makes improving less reliable adding a second chance for failure. You're greatly incentivized to use your own powers and not Page 42. </p><p>Some of this is by design. They wanted people to use default to powers first. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We talked about constructive criticism earlier, and your replies really emphasis my point. Every response is uniformly negative with no positive words, no pointing out what did work, and no suggestions of what could be done to fix any of the ideas or concepts. It's just rely after reply of "No that won't work. That won't work either. That unbalances the game."</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, fine, YOU do better. </p><p>What's your concept for an optional rules module that can add tactical play to 5e? Show me what you've got. Impress me with your design.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6262288, member: 37579"] I want to quickly say two things before getting to the bulk of your rebuttal. Forced movement *could* do that, but often did not. I saw quite a few fights in my time running and playing 4e where people moved enemies because they could, not because they wanted to or it was advantageous. It'd be a lot more efficient to strip out the extra movement and allow people to add it in when the situation warranted. In theory yes, codification doesn't prevent inspiration. In practice less so. Nothing physically stops it, but during play the numerous powers catch the attention and stops imagination. And having lots of at-will is a hindrance, as you do not want to allow a player to improvise an action equivalent to an at-will because that unbalances the game by giving creative players more at-will powers. The problem with Page 42 is twofold. One, it only handles damage and not any other condition. Two, the damage and lack of kicker effects makes improvising less effective, and the requirement of skill checks makes improving less reliable adding a second chance for failure. You're greatly incentivized to use your own powers and not Page 42. Some of this is by design. They wanted people to use default to powers first. We talked about constructive criticism earlier, and your replies really emphasis my point. Every response is uniformly negative with no positive words, no pointing out what did work, and no suggestions of what could be done to fix any of the ideas or concepts. It's just rely after reply of "No that won't work. That won't work either. That unbalances the game." Okay, fine, YOU do better. What's your concept for an optional rules module that can add tactical play to 5e? Show me what you've got. Impress me with your design. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E imbalance: Don't want to play it
Top