Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
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="Lokiare" data-source="post: 6261856" data-attributes="member: 83996"><p>I didn't originally respond to this because I agreed with someone else's analysis. The problem as mentioned by another poster is that combat in a turn based game is a snap shot. If a Rogue can get a backstab by attacking from the back, there will be very few rounds when they don't get a back stab. mechanical bonuses based on facing will almost always be applied since you can literally walk around a target without any penalties (unlike 3E and 4E where you would get an OA to the face for trying it).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As I showed above without altering the base combat rules, a tactics module with facing would not really add much to the game, you would almost always get the bonuses from your preferred attack position because of the way combat is structured. You would encourage movement, but it would end up being "move behind your target for the best bonus." every round and every character and creature in the combat would almost always have the 'best' bonus. In short it really doesn't add much to the game and just complicates things up.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>For the most part things like trip and bull rush are very situational and most of the time not worth using. Daze is extremely powerful and would turn into a replacement for your normal attacks. None of them so far would promote any kind of 'tactical' thinking or play.</p><p></p><p>The Wizard and other casters can already add conditions with their spells without sacrificing any damage at all, so it would only allow other classes to play catch up. Not really a tactical option because they would have to give up damage which would reduce their effectiveness. It would turn into a non-choice most of the time. It also doesn't promote any reason to play a specific class or race. You end up with the class or race being an afterthought because everyone can do the same thing.</p><p></p><p>Roles aren't really tactics, they are more like jobs that you fulfill. Tactics is more the idea of choosing from different options each round to work toward a goal. You can give a knight an aura that forces enemies to attack them, without it being a choice at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lokiare, post: 6261856, member: 83996"] I didn't originally respond to this because I agreed with someone else's analysis. The problem as mentioned by another poster is that combat in a turn based game is a snap shot. If a Rogue can get a backstab by attacking from the back, there will be very few rounds when they don't get a back stab. mechanical bonuses based on facing will almost always be applied since you can literally walk around a target without any penalties (unlike 3E and 4E where you would get an OA to the face for trying it). As I showed above without altering the base combat rules, a tactics module with facing would not really add much to the game, you would almost always get the bonuses from your preferred attack position because of the way combat is structured. You would encourage movement, but it would end up being "move behind your target for the best bonus." every round and every character and creature in the combat would almost always have the 'best' bonus. In short it really doesn't add much to the game and just complicates things up. For the most part things like trip and bull rush are very situational and most of the time not worth using. Daze is extremely powerful and would turn into a replacement for your normal attacks. None of them so far would promote any kind of 'tactical' thinking or play. The Wizard and other casters can already add conditions with their spells without sacrificing any damage at all, so it would only allow other classes to play catch up. Not really a tactical option because they would have to give up damage which would reduce their effectiveness. It would turn into a non-choice most of the time. It also doesn't promote any reason to play a specific class or race. You end up with the class or race being an afterthought because everyone can do the same thing. Roles aren't really tactics, they are more like jobs that you fulfill. Tactics is more the idea of choosing from different options each round to work toward a goal. You can give a knight an aura that forces enemies to attack them, without it being a choice at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E imbalance: Don't want to play it
Top