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: 6262331" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>It would change things yes, but change is neither good nor bad. It might make some spells more useful and others less useful, but that's going to happen with any large rules module. </p><p>It will change the dynamic of the game, but that is the point. And while PCs might be able to get a few extra attacks due to OAs, so will monsters. It's a neutral change that affects both parties equally and is thus balanced.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Just adding a grid is going to allow more opportunities for abilities like sneak attack to proc. By removing uncertainty it's easier to adjudicate. There will be more situations of allies engaging different opponents, but due to limited space the allies threaten the same enemy and the rogue can sneak. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is no class that can only sneak attack when the target is not aware. That's not a fair example to use as a baseline. </p><p>Rogues sneak attack when they have advantage or there is another ally within 5 feet of the enemy. They could be right in front of an enemy with an ally beside them and that will count. Flanking is not required. </p><p>Just adding a grid will greatly increase the rogue's ability to sneak, potentially far more than facing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's your opinion. I disagree. It requires some playtesting to fine tune the execution, but it's very possible. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is just an extended example. A proof of concept. There is bound to be some fine tuning required. You don't just trash an idea just because there were bugs in the brainstorming. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You keep saying that. </p><p>But I've never seen you use math. And I'm not sure how math would apply to facing. And you logic is not without flaws. </p><p>(Games are also not entirely logical or mathematic.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You barely touched #1. You didn't refute it; at best you disputed it. And you went on and on about how #2 would come into play again and again. </p><p>3) characters seldom start fights back-to-back so there's movement right there. And unless you're surrounded, that's inefficient for offense. </p><p>As for 5), you need an ally to flank. Teamwork. You need an ally to watch your back. Teamwork. You need an ally to trigger the reaction so you can get behind the enemy. Teamwork. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A tactical rule system is by it's nature complex. If anything complex gets veto-ed then we might as well give up on tactical play. </p><p>If WotC is serious about making a module designed for fans of tactical miniature combat they have to look at what other tactical miniature combat games include. And often that's facing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That is what play testing is for, yes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Unless...</p><p>The monster is hard to hit or us immune to mundane weaponry/ magic spells</p><p>The monster is in danger of killing a party member</p><p>Another party member can do 2x as much damage as you</p><p>It takes more than just damage to kill the monster</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So... your point is that characters just need to be able to deal damage? That anything other than basic attacks are unneeded?</p><p>That's simple enough to implement, </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>With new content continually coming out, someone always swapped out their powers. (I always had to read the damn power cards.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Unless... the monk does it better. That's a requirement of the design: anyone can grapple, trip, stealth, and stun but the classes that specialize will always be better.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Link?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Still sounds like what you want is "5e classes designed like 4e classes". This is not going to happen. </p><p>It's too late in the design phase to change every class. Even if there was time, if the majority of players who participated had wanted 4e style classes, WotC would have changed the classes to reflect that design. The fact the classes are the way they are suggest the majority of the player base does not want classes designed like 4e classes. </p><p></p><p></p><p>But if that's what you want, conveniently there's an edition just like that. One that you might already own.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's tricky. It's hard to pull out content. Making a game with the complexity you want but options you can remove would be... phenomenally hard. It's so much more efficient to have the simple game and then add overtop. </p><p>Really, once you apply the optional rules, the end result is the same. It's just easier to play without.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Tactical play all but requires more hitpoints. That' same easy option to add.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sounds exactly like the weapon master fighter with the tactical warrior feat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6262331, member: 37579"] It would change things yes, but change is neither good nor bad. It might make some spells more useful and others less useful, but that's going to happen with any large rules module. It will change the dynamic of the game, but that is the point. And while PCs might be able to get a few extra attacks due to OAs, so will monsters. It's a neutral change that affects both parties equally and is thus balanced. Just adding a grid is going to allow more opportunities for abilities like sneak attack to proc. By removing uncertainty it's easier to adjudicate. There will be more situations of allies engaging different opponents, but due to limited space the allies threaten the same enemy and the rogue can sneak. There is no class that can only sneak attack when the target is not aware. That's not a fair example to use as a baseline. Rogues sneak attack when they have advantage or there is another ally within 5 feet of the enemy. They could be right in front of an enemy with an ally beside them and that will count. Flanking is not required. Just adding a grid will greatly increase the rogue's ability to sneak, potentially far more than facing. That's your opinion. I disagree. It requires some playtesting to fine tune the execution, but it's very possible. This is just an extended example. A proof of concept. There is bound to be some fine tuning required. You don't just trash an idea just because there were bugs in the brainstorming. You keep saying that. But I've never seen you use math. And I'm not sure how math would apply to facing. And you logic is not without flaws. (Games are also not entirely logical or mathematic.) You barely touched #1. You didn't refute it; at best you disputed it. And you went on and on about how #2 would come into play again and again. 3) characters seldom start fights back-to-back so there's movement right there. And unless you're surrounded, that's inefficient for offense. As for 5), you need an ally to flank. Teamwork. You need an ally to watch your back. Teamwork. You need an ally to trigger the reaction so you can get behind the enemy. Teamwork. A tactical rule system is by it's nature complex. If anything complex gets veto-ed then we might as well give up on tactical play. If WotC is serious about making a module designed for fans of tactical miniature combat they have to look at what other tactical miniature combat games include. And often that's facing. That is what play testing is for, yes. Unless... The monster is hard to hit or us immune to mundane weaponry/ magic spells The monster is in danger of killing a party member Another party member can do 2x as much damage as you It takes more than just damage to kill the monster So... your point is that characters just need to be able to deal damage? That anything other than basic attacks are unneeded? That's simple enough to implement, With new content continually coming out, someone always swapped out their powers. (I always had to read the damn power cards.) Unless... the monk does it better. That's a requirement of the design: anyone can grapple, trip, stealth, and stun but the classes that specialize will always be better. Link? Still sounds like what you want is "5e classes designed like 4e classes". This is not going to happen. It's too late in the design phase to change every class. Even if there was time, if the majority of players who participated had wanted 4e style classes, WotC would have changed the classes to reflect that design. The fact the classes are the way they are suggest the majority of the player base does not want classes designed like 4e classes. But if that's what you want, conveniently there's an edition just like that. One that you might already own. That's tricky. It's hard to pull out content. Making a game with the complexity you want but options you can remove would be... phenomenally hard. It's so much more efficient to have the simple game and then add overtop. Really, once you apply the optional rules, the end result is the same. It's just easier to play without. Tactical play all but requires more hitpoints. That' same easy option to add. Sounds exactly like the weapon master fighter with the tactical warrior feat. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E imbalance: Don't want to play it
Top