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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Future format of books that mimic SCAG: Will you buy them?
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: 6759833" data-attributes="member: 5834"><p>My players are power gamers in general. From a mathematical standpoint, most of the mechanics were inferior to what is offered elsewhere. If you have players that either aren't concerned about the math behind the mechanics or are unable to determine superior options, then you'll probably be ok. In my case, if I can't create a character concept that equals or exceeds an available option for the majority of material with this early a release, it's on my no buy list. I found the mechanics in the SCAG to be inferior to what I could create using the PHB for the majority of options. The Bladesinger being one of the worst offenders. You could make a better Bladesinger with an Eldritch Knight or a wizard/fighter hybrid. </p><p></p><p>And having played a monk before, I find the Death Monk problematic because the monk will not land many killing blows due to inferior damage and the requirement he be in melee. Sun Soul monk could be fun and interesting providing some ranged attacking. But if you an archer in the group, the monk is sort of a third wheel waste of time.</p><p></p><p>Storm Sorcerer is somewhere between Dragon and Wild Mage, closer to Dragon Sorcerer with a nice high level ability. The Shadow Sorcerer's mechanics were much more powerful within a group. </p><p></p><p>Provable in play and on paper mechanical viability is extremely important to me. The monk archetypes would probably be ok in my book if I had not played one in a group with an archer and a warlock/fighter. My damage and defenses were inferior in nearly every way. I rarely landed death blows because of it. I was useless with ranged attacks. My group liked to take advantage of their superior ranged capabilities to take things down as often as possible. It was pretty rare that ranged wasn't a vastly superior option to melee. Close-Quarters Combat fighting style pretty much made ranged better than melee in any way very early on. I'm allowing its use right now, but I do hope maybe they look at that Fighting Style again and modify it some. Way too good.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 6759833, member: 5834"] My players are power gamers in general. From a mathematical standpoint, most of the mechanics were inferior to what is offered elsewhere. If you have players that either aren't concerned about the math behind the mechanics or are unable to determine superior options, then you'll probably be ok. In my case, if I can't create a character concept that equals or exceeds an available option for the majority of material with this early a release, it's on my no buy list. I found the mechanics in the SCAG to be inferior to what I could create using the PHB for the majority of options. The Bladesinger being one of the worst offenders. You could make a better Bladesinger with an Eldritch Knight or a wizard/fighter hybrid. And having played a monk before, I find the Death Monk problematic because the monk will not land many killing blows due to inferior damage and the requirement he be in melee. Sun Soul monk could be fun and interesting providing some ranged attacking. But if you an archer in the group, the monk is sort of a third wheel waste of time. Storm Sorcerer is somewhere between Dragon and Wild Mage, closer to Dragon Sorcerer with a nice high level ability. The Shadow Sorcerer's mechanics were much more powerful within a group. Provable in play and on paper mechanical viability is extremely important to me. The monk archetypes would probably be ok in my book if I had not played one in a group with an archer and a warlock/fighter. My damage and defenses were inferior in nearly every way. I rarely landed death blows because of it. I was useless with ranged attacks. My group liked to take advantage of their superior ranged capabilities to take things down as often as possible. It was pretty rare that ranged wasn't a vastly superior option to melee. Close-Quarters Combat fighting style pretty much made ranged better than melee in any way very early on. I'm allowing its use right now, but I do hope maybe they look at that Fighting Style again and modify it some. Way too good. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Future format of books that mimic SCAG: Will you buy them?
Top