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
*Dungeons & Dragons
In Depth Critique of Part 3 of Basic Rules
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="Pallidore" data-source="post: 6354810" data-attributes="member: 6777732"><p>Remathilis: I’m not sure I would say I took offense. I merely pointed out pitfalls and potential pitfalls (not all major; some were only minor or moderate). Of 53 spells out of 130 or so (about 40%). And pointing out that the king is a bit less finely clothed than might appear does not mean I wish to, or should, leave the kingdom. Each game system has its attractive features and drawbacks. I’m interested in the improvement of this one, and not just for legacy or popularity reasons.</p><p></p><p>Magic is cool; I do not want to leave magic using characters with “nothing” to do. While I do think that part of the reason that class abilities have inflated is because of excessive magic that has created continuous pressure upward as each class feeds the inflationary arms-race spiral, there are ways to moderate while avoiding that disproportionate nerfing that takes the fun out. A difficulty of 4E is that, in running away from a bloated and broken 3.5 system, it swung effectively to the other extreme. While I want to wait until after the full 5E rollout to consider specifics, I will point out here that there were (and are) ways that the 40% that are “problem” spells could have been distributed that would have allowed fun, but with a meaningful decision by the caster for those spells, rather than an ever-renewing techno-equivalent resource that requires little to no consideration of complications.</p><p></p><p>I would, however, be interested in your thoughts on why you feel that some specific spells I feel are problems are not really a problem. I’m always looking to up my DM-fu and gain a broader and more robust perspective!</p><p></p><p>Pemerton: An archer or archers would actually have to hit (and no matter how good they are, 5% of the time they miss regardless). And any number of things/variables could be operative to either reduce hit chances or even delay or disrupt them entirely. And usually, an archer would need to hit a good deal more than once.</p><p></p><p>No to hit roll is required for most spells. The character’s health, and even continuance, assuming there IS a save, can come down to one make-or-break roll of the dice.</p><p> </p><p>I agree with you there is no direct bypassing of the hit point mechanic for these save-or-else spells, but in some cases, the effect is nearly the same.</p><p></p><p>T. Vargas: Good thoughts. I will additionally say there are ways to put in danger, convey danger, feel danger, without making the jump directly to “your character’s dead; roll up a new one.” Just one example would be inflictions and infirming events (even for an extensive period) that can teach new players how close their lovingly crafted characters came to permanent exit.</p><p> </p><p>Your points bring to mind something important: The number of female players remains, despite some modest improvement, dramatically under-representative of the general population, thus limiting the market potential and possible long-term viability of D&D. I believe it has direct correlation to this lethality problem. The 5E game is asking players to go to a great deal of immersive investment in background, goals, ideals, bonds, flaws, etc., an investment that will require the corresponding time and life energy on the part of the player to do so. And it is more common for a female player to go into greater depth and richness in this type of creating. For 5E to so casually put this at great risk, especially for new players, is a major foul. That it creates giant contradictions of stated intentions and inconsistencies in execution by doing so is a further foul. For most anyone, anytime, having a significant amount of time and life-energy in something you’ve created is, to put it far too mildly, not going to be well received if that creation is effectively destroyed. Yet that’s what happens by the high lethality problem. In today’s time starved environment, one rich with alternative entertainment options, almost no one is going to put up with that. Certainly almost no female. I learned this lesson early, when the dice killed a female player’s lovingly crafted character early in a game I DM'd. I have since watched it play out its regrettable foregone conclusion in too many other DMs' games.</p><p> </p><p>Can players make intelligent/wise decisions for their invested-in character to have a very high chance of avoiding character demise? If the answer is, well, sometimes no, there is a massive problem with game design when that game has strongly stated it wants player-character immersion into the setting! And the problem gets magnified by degrees when the players are in a game with an average or newbie DM.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pallidore, post: 6354810, member: 6777732"] Remathilis: I’m not sure I would say I took offense. I merely pointed out pitfalls and potential pitfalls (not all major; some were only minor or moderate). Of 53 spells out of 130 or so (about 40%). And pointing out that the king is a bit less finely clothed than might appear does not mean I wish to, or should, leave the kingdom. Each game system has its attractive features and drawbacks. I’m interested in the improvement of this one, and not just for legacy or popularity reasons. Magic is cool; I do not want to leave magic using characters with “nothing” to do. While I do think that part of the reason that class abilities have inflated is because of excessive magic that has created continuous pressure upward as each class feeds the inflationary arms-race spiral, there are ways to moderate while avoiding that disproportionate nerfing that takes the fun out. A difficulty of 4E is that, in running away from a bloated and broken 3.5 system, it swung effectively to the other extreme. While I want to wait until after the full 5E rollout to consider specifics, I will point out here that there were (and are) ways that the 40% that are “problem” spells could have been distributed that would have allowed fun, but with a meaningful decision by the caster for those spells, rather than an ever-renewing techno-equivalent resource that requires little to no consideration of complications. I would, however, be interested in your thoughts on why you feel that some specific spells I feel are problems are not really a problem. I’m always looking to up my DM-fu and gain a broader and more robust perspective! Pemerton: An archer or archers would actually have to hit (and no matter how good they are, 5% of the time they miss regardless). And any number of things/variables could be operative to either reduce hit chances or even delay or disrupt them entirely. And usually, an archer would need to hit a good deal more than once. No to hit roll is required for most spells. The character’s health, and even continuance, assuming there IS a save, can come down to one make-or-break roll of the dice. I agree with you there is no direct bypassing of the hit point mechanic for these save-or-else spells, but in some cases, the effect is nearly the same. T. Vargas: Good thoughts. I will additionally say there are ways to put in danger, convey danger, feel danger, without making the jump directly to “your character’s dead; roll up a new one.” Just one example would be inflictions and infirming events (even for an extensive period) that can teach new players how close their lovingly crafted characters came to permanent exit. Your points bring to mind something important: The number of female players remains, despite some modest improvement, dramatically under-representative of the general population, thus limiting the market potential and possible long-term viability of D&D. I believe it has direct correlation to this lethality problem. The 5E game is asking players to go to a great deal of immersive investment in background, goals, ideals, bonds, flaws, etc., an investment that will require the corresponding time and life energy on the part of the player to do so. And it is more common for a female player to go into greater depth and richness in this type of creating. For 5E to so casually put this at great risk, especially for new players, is a major foul. That it creates giant contradictions of stated intentions and inconsistencies in execution by doing so is a further foul. For most anyone, anytime, having a significant amount of time and life-energy in something you’ve created is, to put it far too mildly, not going to be well received if that creation is effectively destroyed. Yet that’s what happens by the high lethality problem. In today’s time starved environment, one rich with alternative entertainment options, almost no one is going to put up with that. Certainly almost no female. I learned this lesson early, when the dice killed a female player’s lovingly crafted character early in a game I DM'd. I have since watched it play out its regrettable foregone conclusion in too many other DMs' games. Can players make intelligent/wise decisions for their invested-in character to have a very high chance of avoiding character demise? If the answer is, well, sometimes no, there is a massive problem with game design when that game has strongly stated it wants player-character immersion into the setting! And the problem gets magnified by degrees when the players are in a game with an average or newbie DM. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
In Depth Critique of Part 3 of Basic Rules
Top