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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2 Playtest Preorders, Podcasts, & "Pathfinder 1.5"
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="Imaro" data-source="post: 7739909" data-attributes="member: 48965"><p>But designing through engagement with your player base isn't "tried and true" that's what you're missing. Tell me another game that's been designed this way, much less an edition of D&D. If it was tried and true it would have been tested and it's success guaranteed through previous examples... it wasn't. I mean honestly if this is a tried and true way to success... why doesn't every company create their products in this way... oh yeah because sometimes you get the "New Coke" effect where your customer base says they want a particular thing but then end up disliking or even totally rejecting it. Just off the top of my head... bounded accuracy, advantage/disadvantage, universal proficiency bonus, sub classes, and quite a few other things are new... they haven't appeared in previous editions. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First...them polling well still doesn't take away from the fact that they are innovative mechanics that hadn't appeared in D&D before.</p><p></p><p>Now to touch on this "no risk" theory you keep throwing out there... the majority of the fanbase wanted the problems in 3.x fixed... WotC/Hasbro knew this and yet...something went wrong when they gave them what they wanted. The truth is after the fiasco with the previous edition they didn't know whether the the new mechanics I listed above would be popular or not until the game was published, a poll doesn't guarantee that...Again I'll go to New Coke... it polled extremely high in taste tests... and yet it failed. According to your logic there's no way it could have failed and yet it did. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See that's the key though, it was still a risk from the goodwill they had lost with 4e to polling not being an exact science... there was risk. You're making these general broad statements again just as you did earlier about 5e martial characters but when looked at logically they aren't true. Did they play it safe (I prefer to call it doing your due diligence) but ok sure. Was there no risk... absolutely false there was plenty. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well that's probably because you've already made up your mind and aren't open to that preconceived idea being challenged. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Lol... now to me this wasn't a risk, Pathfinder had already become top dog on ICV2 before they shut it down (somewhere around summer 2011) and with Hasbro over them now, 2nd tier just wasn't an option for D&D... so it wasn't a risk it was a non-choice.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Emphasis mine: The Rogue's Cunning Action already makes this statement absurd (I also see we've shifted the goalposts from "never does anything but" to "majority of the time". A good rogue is going to be making tactical choices with that ability alone nearly every round. But now that I'm thinking about it I'm confused on what type of binary options spellcasters have that don't boil down to attack and move once you go to a high level... an attack spell is still just that, an attack. Martial choices come into play with multiple attacks, the ability to move between attacks, the utilization of their bonus action, attacks of opportunities, etc. </p><p></p><p>As for it boiling down to a math problem... that sounds like a problem with encounter design as opposed to a lack of choices. Even 4e with it's wide range of powers couldn't overcome uninspired encounter design, same with 5e.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But you have made broad sweeping generalizations (such as martials in 5e don't do anything but move and attack) as if they were fact when they are in fact untrue.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See my biggest problem with this thinking is it doesn't take into consideration how meaningful those choices are. If there's one body type that provides a better appearance, speed, protection, etc. Is that more customizable since the other body types all kind of suck compared to it?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hmmm...Not sure I'd agree with that. There are feats in 5e that up your combat prowess and there are feats that up your breadth... i feel like you are only talking about combat prowess based feats. Something like Dungeon Delver (a non-combat feat) gives you </p><p>-Advantage on Wisdom (Perception checks) & Intelligenece(Investigation checks) to find secret doors</p><p>- Advantage on saving throws made to avoid or resist traps</p><p>- resistance to damage dealt by traps</p><p>-Search for traps traveling at a normal pace instead of only at a slow pace</p><p></p><p>To me this is a meaningful feat... this feat has made you highly capable (even without high attributes or having levels in the rogue class) in detecting, avoiding and shrugging off the damage of traps. it's meaningful in how it defines the character. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay let me clarify this now are we only talking about combat?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm still confused by what choices a caster gets outside of attack and move (using spells instead of different weapons of course) when looked at from such a high level without context. So please enlighten me on what these meaningful decisions they get are in 5e?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 7739909, member: 48965"] But designing through engagement with your player base isn't "tried and true" that's what you're missing. Tell me another game that's been designed this way, much less an edition of D&D. If it was tried and true it would have been tested and it's success guaranteed through previous examples... it wasn't. I mean honestly if this is a tried and true way to success... why doesn't every company create their products in this way... oh yeah because sometimes you get the "New Coke" effect where your customer base says they want a particular thing but then end up disliking or even totally rejecting it. Just off the top of my head... bounded accuracy, advantage/disadvantage, universal proficiency bonus, sub classes, and quite a few other things are new... they haven't appeared in previous editions. First...them polling well still doesn't take away from the fact that they are innovative mechanics that hadn't appeared in D&D before. Now to touch on this "no risk" theory you keep throwing out there... the majority of the fanbase wanted the problems in 3.x fixed... WotC/Hasbro knew this and yet...something went wrong when they gave them what they wanted. The truth is after the fiasco with the previous edition they didn't know whether the the new mechanics I listed above would be popular or not until the game was published, a poll doesn't guarantee that...Again I'll go to New Coke... it polled extremely high in taste tests... and yet it failed. According to your logic there's no way it could have failed and yet it did. See that's the key though, it was still a risk from the goodwill they had lost with 4e to polling not being an exact science... there was risk. You're making these general broad statements again just as you did earlier about 5e martial characters but when looked at logically they aren't true. Did they play it safe (I prefer to call it doing your due diligence) but ok sure. Was there no risk... absolutely false there was plenty. Well that's probably because you've already made up your mind and aren't open to that preconceived idea being challenged. Lol... now to me this wasn't a risk, Pathfinder had already become top dog on ICV2 before they shut it down (somewhere around summer 2011) and with Hasbro over them now, 2nd tier just wasn't an option for D&D... so it wasn't a risk it was a non-choice. Emphasis mine: The Rogue's Cunning Action already makes this statement absurd (I also see we've shifted the goalposts from "never does anything but" to "majority of the time". A good rogue is going to be making tactical choices with that ability alone nearly every round. But now that I'm thinking about it I'm confused on what type of binary options spellcasters have that don't boil down to attack and move once you go to a high level... an attack spell is still just that, an attack. Martial choices come into play with multiple attacks, the ability to move between attacks, the utilization of their bonus action, attacks of opportunities, etc. As for it boiling down to a math problem... that sounds like a problem with encounter design as opposed to a lack of choices. Even 4e with it's wide range of powers couldn't overcome uninspired encounter design, same with 5e. But you have made broad sweeping generalizations (such as martials in 5e don't do anything but move and attack) as if they were fact when they are in fact untrue. See my biggest problem with this thinking is it doesn't take into consideration how meaningful those choices are. If there's one body type that provides a better appearance, speed, protection, etc. Is that more customizable since the other body types all kind of suck compared to it? Hmmm...Not sure I'd agree with that. There are feats in 5e that up your combat prowess and there are feats that up your breadth... i feel like you are only talking about combat prowess based feats. Something like Dungeon Delver (a non-combat feat) gives you -Advantage on Wisdom (Perception checks) & Intelligenece(Investigation checks) to find secret doors - Advantage on saving throws made to avoid or resist traps - resistance to damage dealt by traps -Search for traps traveling at a normal pace instead of only at a slow pace To me this is a meaningful feat... this feat has made you highly capable (even without high attributes or having levels in the rogue class) in detecting, avoiding and shrugging off the damage of traps. it's meaningful in how it defines the character. Okay let me clarify this now are we only talking about combat? I'm still confused by what choices a caster gets outside of attack and move (using spells instead of different weapons of course) when looked at from such a high level without context. So please enlighten me on what these meaningful decisions they get are in 5e? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2 Playtest Preorders, Podcasts, & "Pathfinder 1.5"
Top