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 coming! 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
D&D Older Editions
Am I crazy? I've just gotten a hankering to play 4e again...
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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8076930" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>The BIGGEST single flaw in 5e's engine, and it is a core flaw that cannot simply be fixed with an optional rule, is the stupidity of saves vs attack rolls. EVERY SINGLE TIME we play 5e and someone casts a spell we now have to go look the damned thing up and figure out which rules it uses. This is dumb, bad game design, and just adds nothing to 5e. It was clearly added to the game as a "well, it existed in AD&D so we sorta gotta emulate what was there", which doesn't impress me in the least. This is why my own game play, which is pretty divergent from stock 4e, is still essentially based on 4e and is not a variant of 5e.</p><p></p><p>The other problem is defenses. The 5e version of defenses, IMHO, is a bad implementation. I'm not sure why they did it, except maybe to get rid of a 3e/4e ism (the three 'combo' defenses/saves). It makes no sense. It is hair-splitting to say if an attack should target WIS or CHA, WILL would have worked fine there. Also you can at least have a go at an "I have even defenses" or "I have a monster WILL but little FORT" as a choice, but with 6 numbers, you just have to be stuck with where they fall, so you have kind of lost a bit of characterization territory. I don't see what was gained with this change either.</p><p></p><p>The awkwardness with armor class is not so great either, but then I'm not convinced AC was a great success of the 4e engine either. The whole mess with Barbarians and whatnot and light armor patch feats and such was a mess. The theory was OK, but it didn't hold up well. Still, 5e definitely didn't make the situation better, it just moved things back in the direction of AD&D, kinda, but really all it did was restate armor basic bonuses as a flat number instead of an offset from the base of 10. And yeah, medium armors kinda suck, although there are a few niches where you might want to use them (IE if you have a DEX between 12 and 15 and don't want to wear heavy armor). </p><p></p><p>In other ways I think 5e did OK, cutting the game to 20 levels of play was good. I'm OK with the range of bonuses and such. It isn't some amazing solution to anything as it is sometimes advertised, but for a 20 level game it kinda works. I don't think it ends up BETTER than 4e's approach though. The ditching of A/E/D/U I think was a bad choice as well though, but you COULD hack that back in if you were really determined. It is just that you might as well just use 4e and avoid the problems above to start with... </p><p></p><p>5e almost did most things OK, but then it fumbled. I don't like their class design much either, but that's a different story.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8076930, member: 82106"] The BIGGEST single flaw in 5e's engine, and it is a core flaw that cannot simply be fixed with an optional rule, is the stupidity of saves vs attack rolls. EVERY SINGLE TIME we play 5e and someone casts a spell we now have to go look the damned thing up and figure out which rules it uses. This is dumb, bad game design, and just adds nothing to 5e. It was clearly added to the game as a "well, it existed in AD&D so we sorta gotta emulate what was there", which doesn't impress me in the least. This is why my own game play, which is pretty divergent from stock 4e, is still essentially based on 4e and is not a variant of 5e. The other problem is defenses. The 5e version of defenses, IMHO, is a bad implementation. I'm not sure why they did it, except maybe to get rid of a 3e/4e ism (the three 'combo' defenses/saves). It makes no sense. It is hair-splitting to say if an attack should target WIS or CHA, WILL would have worked fine there. Also you can at least have a go at an "I have even defenses" or "I have a monster WILL but little FORT" as a choice, but with 6 numbers, you just have to be stuck with where they fall, so you have kind of lost a bit of characterization territory. I don't see what was gained with this change either. The awkwardness with armor class is not so great either, but then I'm not convinced AC was a great success of the 4e engine either. The whole mess with Barbarians and whatnot and light armor patch feats and such was a mess. The theory was OK, but it didn't hold up well. Still, 5e definitely didn't make the situation better, it just moved things back in the direction of AD&D, kinda, but really all it did was restate armor basic bonuses as a flat number instead of an offset from the base of 10. And yeah, medium armors kinda suck, although there are a few niches where you might want to use them (IE if you have a DEX between 12 and 15 and don't want to wear heavy armor). In other ways I think 5e did OK, cutting the game to 20 levels of play was good. I'm OK with the range of bonuses and such. It isn't some amazing solution to anything as it is sometimes advertised, but for a 20 level game it kinda works. I don't think it ends up BETTER than 4e's approach though. The ditching of A/E/D/U I think was a bad choice as well though, but you COULD hack that back in if you were really determined. It is just that you might as well just use 4e and avoid the problems above to start with... 5e almost did most things OK, but then it fumbled. I don't like their class design much either, but that's a different story. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Am I crazy? I've just gotten a hankering to play 4e again...
Top