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
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
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
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
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Jeremy Crawford Interviews
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="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9413148" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>Making it a bonus actions makes it into a complicated and less functional mess. Nothing that's "on-hit" should ever be a bonus action. It's simply bad design (and yeah that does include a couple of existing Feats). Also unless they've made it hit harder, and I haven't seen this discussed yet, the "price" of making a bonus action AND a spell slot means it's considerably worse than it was. The only real nerf it needed was 1/turn. But by making a bonus action, the cost becomes significantly higher than that (because it's removing the possibility of a bonus action attack or the like). I don't think WotC understand the action economy well enough to actually get that though, at this point.</p><p></p><p>I mean, lest anyone suggest they do, remember what they tried to do to Sneak Attack, and seemed really confident was a cool idea.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Can you list a couple of the problematic 2014 Paladin combos here? I've literally never heard of this being a balance issue with the 2014 Paladin.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Imho it should matter, because if this and the new Ranger represent the general direction of design for 5E from this point onwards, I'm not feeling very good at 5E.</p><p></p><p>However, I don't think they do represent that. I think what actually happened here is the same as what caused problems with several classes in 5E 2014, and caused 4E's blandification to be more severe than intended (per the designers, they we working towards something more like the later take on classes, but had to get it out the door). Specifically, WotC ran out of time to do an actually-good job on the class design for these classes, and just rushed them through with something that it thought would be "good enough". I don't think it is, myself, but at least with Paladin people can just use the 2014 version, whereas with Ranger, it's bad either way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9413148, member: 18"] Making it a bonus actions makes it into a complicated and less functional mess. Nothing that's "on-hit" should ever be a bonus action. It's simply bad design (and yeah that does include a couple of existing Feats). Also unless they've made it hit harder, and I haven't seen this discussed yet, the "price" of making a bonus action AND a spell slot means it's considerably worse than it was. The only real nerf it needed was 1/turn. But by making a bonus action, the cost becomes significantly higher than that (because it's removing the possibility of a bonus action attack or the like). I don't think WotC understand the action economy well enough to actually get that though, at this point. I mean, lest anyone suggest they do, remember what they tried to do to Sneak Attack, and seemed really confident was a cool idea. Can you list a couple of the problematic 2014 Paladin combos here? I've literally never heard of this being a balance issue with the 2014 Paladin. Imho it should matter, because if this and the new Ranger represent the general direction of design for 5E from this point onwards, I'm not feeling very good at 5E. However, I don't think they do represent that. I think what actually happened here is the same as what caused problems with several classes in 5E 2014, and caused 4E's blandification to be more severe than intended (per the designers, they we working towards something more like the later take on classes, but had to get it out the door). Specifically, WotC ran out of time to do an actually-good job on the class design for these classes, and just rushed them through with something that it thought would be "good enough". I don't think it is, myself, but at least with Paladin people can just use the 2014 version, whereas with Ranger, it's bad either way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New Jeremy Crawford Interviews
Top