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
*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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy
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="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6635669" data-attributes="member: 5834"><p>I posted the 100% because I've spent the last whatever months discussing this with other people breaking down the math so many times that I've reached the point of fatigue. More than a few of us have already shown mathematically and anecdotally that ranged is better than martial. That concentration narrows solutions and limits caster tactics. Part of this like the concentration is intended. Not sure if they intended the GWM and Sharpshooter discrepancy, but it happened.</p><p></p><p>I get this is a public forum. When you have discussed in other threads with equal fervor the same discussions and had them proven mathematically and experientially by yourself and others, you start to kind of feel a bit irritated when you have to explain them again because new people that must have missed the other discussions start to jump in with the same arguments. I imagine in the future I should just give up and feel confident that what has already been proven is true, but won't apply to everyone's games due to what DM's allow or party size or whatever other numerous different factors affect each group's game. I would like some of these concerns possibly addressed by the game designers because my players prefer to follow the rules in the book. It's like pulling teeth to limit to GWM and Sharpshooter without an official change. </p><p></p><p>Mearls and Crawford should be open to these types of changes if the player-base proves that a particular feat or rule is causing problems with the core game assumptions using both math and experience. That is what we have done with a few of these things. I'm hoping they get addressed in some fashion. So when someone says, "It's not really a problem" and uses their own very far away from Core rule assmptions game, I don't want Mearls and Crawford to think that the problems using the rules mostly as written in the Core Books are fine. Because they aren't. They should be willing to do a little clean up to make things consistent across the game and help us DMs whose players want official rulings before we change something like Sharpshooter (this is the worst offender) being far too powerful compared to other forms of martial combat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 6635669, member: 5834"] I posted the 100% because I've spent the last whatever months discussing this with other people breaking down the math so many times that I've reached the point of fatigue. More than a few of us have already shown mathematically and anecdotally that ranged is better than martial. That concentration narrows solutions and limits caster tactics. Part of this like the concentration is intended. Not sure if they intended the GWM and Sharpshooter discrepancy, but it happened. I get this is a public forum. When you have discussed in other threads with equal fervor the same discussions and had them proven mathematically and experientially by yourself and others, you start to kind of feel a bit irritated when you have to explain them again because new people that must have missed the other discussions start to jump in with the same arguments. I imagine in the future I should just give up and feel confident that what has already been proven is true, but won't apply to everyone's games due to what DM's allow or party size or whatever other numerous different factors affect each group's game. I would like some of these concerns possibly addressed by the game designers because my players prefer to follow the rules in the book. It's like pulling teeth to limit to GWM and Sharpshooter without an official change. Mearls and Crawford should be open to these types of changes if the player-base proves that a particular feat or rule is causing problems with the core game assumptions using both math and experience. That is what we have done with a few of these things. I'm hoping they get addressed in some fashion. So when someone says, "It's not really a problem" and uses their own very far away from Core rule assmptions game, I don't want Mearls and Crawford to think that the problems using the rules mostly as written in the Core Books are fine. Because they aren't. They should be willing to do a little clean up to make things consistent across the game and help us DMs whose players want official rulings before we change something like Sharpshooter (this is the worst offender) being far too powerful compared to other forms of martial combat. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5th Edition has broken Bounded Accuracy
Top