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
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How viable is 5E to play at high levels?
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="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7208987" data-attributes="member: 15700"><p>Serious irony warning...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><em>YOU </em>were the one to make the claim that I was the only one who said it was fine. That's objectively false, because we can point to other people saying the same thing. <em>YOU </em>are the one to ignore many posts in this thread that didn't say what you wanted them to say by your claim that there were only two responses (there weren't). I never said the game was perfect, or that no one said high level was fine as long as you make modifications. There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. Afraid that's you. In fact, you contradicted yourself in that post, by saying there were only two answers (either it's broken, or it's doable but needs modification), but then immediately followed that by saying people were giving you a third (the game is perfect so move on). You can't have it both ways. You can't say there were only two answers and then accuse people of saying a third in the same breath. Especially when that third never actually happened, but there were in fact other "answers" that you pointedly ignored.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Some advice. If you have to resort to a personal attack on me that is not true at all (I have no scars), then it's a huge sign that your argument is weak. In this case, you made a strawman immediately followed by an ad hominem. </p><p></p><p>Strawman: Me saying "anybody who was trying to play the game following the rules as written was a "bad DM". I never said that, or remotely implied that. What I did say, was that if RAW doesn't fit what you want as a group, you are a lazy DM for not putting in the time or effort to tailor the game to your table's needs. And that is very much true. The game, right out of the box, is hardly ever exactly what people want for their preference. It certainly isn't for me. But it's the DM's <em>job </em>to know their group and use the tools provided to tailor the game to those preferences. It's been that way since day 1. I get the impression that you don't think of the rules as a toolbox, which is what they are. Everyone modifies parts of the game to fit their needs, or they decide it's too much work and play a game they like better.</p><p></p><p>Ad Hominem: Accusing me of having edition war scars that have nothing to do with the topic. </p><p></p><p>I'm not "lashing out" at anybody. But if you're going to make outright false claims, prepare to be called out on them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 7208987, member: 15700"] Serious irony warning... [I]YOU [/I]were the one to make the claim that I was the only one who said it was fine. That's objectively false, because we can point to other people saying the same thing. [I]YOU [/I]are the one to ignore many posts in this thread that didn't say what you wanted them to say by your claim that there were only two responses (there weren't). I never said the game was perfect, or that no one said high level was fine as long as you make modifications. There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. Afraid that's you. In fact, you contradicted yourself in that post, by saying there were only two answers (either it's broken, or it's doable but needs modification), but then immediately followed that by saying people were giving you a third (the game is perfect so move on). You can't have it both ways. You can't say there were only two answers and then accuse people of saying a third in the same breath. Especially when that third never actually happened, but there were in fact other "answers" that you pointedly ignored. Some advice. If you have to resort to a personal attack on me that is not true at all (I have no scars), then it's a huge sign that your argument is weak. In this case, you made a strawman immediately followed by an ad hominem. Strawman: Me saying "anybody who was trying to play the game following the rules as written was a "bad DM". I never said that, or remotely implied that. What I did say, was that if RAW doesn't fit what you want as a group, you are a lazy DM for not putting in the time or effort to tailor the game to your table's needs. And that is very much true. The game, right out of the box, is hardly ever exactly what people want for their preference. It certainly isn't for me. But it's the DM's [I]job [/I]to know their group and use the tools provided to tailor the game to those preferences. It's been that way since day 1. I get the impression that you don't think of the rules as a toolbox, which is what they are. Everyone modifies parts of the game to fit their needs, or they decide it's too much work and play a game they like better. Ad Hominem: Accusing me of having edition war scars that have nothing to do with the topic. I'm not "lashing out" at anybody. But if you're going to make outright false claims, prepare to be called out on them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How viable is 5E to play at high levels?
Top