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
Rules, too much or too little? YOU DECIDE!
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="Ganders" data-source="post: 7569252" data-attributes="member: 37815"><p>There's such a thing as over-simplification. 5e goes one step too far in a number of places.</p><p></p><p>For instance, perception used to be divided into spot and listen, for seeing and hearing. These were consolidated into a single number on the grounds that all we really care about is whether we see that person sneaking up on us or not. But in the process of simplifying, we added as much complexity as we removed, there's no net gain.</p><p></p><p>The distinction between light and sound, between seeing and hearing, still needs to be made anyway. Invisible is not hidden. Does choosing to not move take an action, or is that a lack of action? By the time you get to the monster manual, it breaks down completely. It's just not enough to note proficiency in perception, you have a whole long list of critters that have advantage on 'perception checks that involve sight' and a different list that has advantage on 'perception checks that involve hearing', and a partially-overlapping list that have double proficiency in perception. It actually feels more complex and rules heavy, not less.</p><p></p><p>It's not just skills. When you look in detail, you find quite a lot of things that used to be two numbers consolidated into one number in 5e. There used to be a 'flat-footed' AC, now there's just advantage to hit, which applies to all the same conditions where 'flat-footed' used to apply. The net gain there is dubious, because it creates plenty of edge cases, rules questions, and absurd contradictions during play... it might have been easier to leave it as it was.</p><p></p><p>Another time it went too far was making Eldritch Blast a cantrip instead of a class feature. Yes I see the connection, you can take advantage of all the rules we already know about how cantrips work instead of having to explain the ability in detail. It seems like really clever design at first, and since it's only on the warlock spell list nobody else will be affected. But then you have other classes dipping a single level of warlock, or taking the Magic Initiate feat in order to exploit the scaling of cantrips by overall level rather than class level. In the end you out-clevered yourself. It would have been wiser to refrain.</p><p></p><p>I definitely think 5e has strayed from simplification into over-simplification.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ganders, post: 7569252, member: 37815"] There's such a thing as over-simplification. 5e goes one step too far in a number of places. For instance, perception used to be divided into spot and listen, for seeing and hearing. These were consolidated into a single number on the grounds that all we really care about is whether we see that person sneaking up on us or not. But in the process of simplifying, we added as much complexity as we removed, there's no net gain. The distinction between light and sound, between seeing and hearing, still needs to be made anyway. Invisible is not hidden. Does choosing to not move take an action, or is that a lack of action? By the time you get to the monster manual, it breaks down completely. It's just not enough to note proficiency in perception, you have a whole long list of critters that have advantage on 'perception checks that involve sight' and a different list that has advantage on 'perception checks that involve hearing', and a partially-overlapping list that have double proficiency in perception. It actually feels more complex and rules heavy, not less. It's not just skills. When you look in detail, you find quite a lot of things that used to be two numbers consolidated into one number in 5e. There used to be a 'flat-footed' AC, now there's just advantage to hit, which applies to all the same conditions where 'flat-footed' used to apply. The net gain there is dubious, because it creates plenty of edge cases, rules questions, and absurd contradictions during play... it might have been easier to leave it as it was. Another time it went too far was making Eldritch Blast a cantrip instead of a class feature. Yes I see the connection, you can take advantage of all the rules we already know about how cantrips work instead of having to explain the ability in detail. It seems like really clever design at first, and since it's only on the warlock spell list nobody else will be affected. But then you have other classes dipping a single level of warlock, or taking the Magic Initiate feat in order to exploit the scaling of cantrips by overall level rather than class level. In the end you out-clevered yourself. It would have been wiser to refrain. I definitely think 5e has strayed from simplification into over-simplification. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Rules, too much or too little? YOU DECIDE!
Top