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
Why (and how) 5E can succeed
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="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6239576" data-attributes="member: 1165"><p>While I don't agree, I can see why. Casters get fewer spells per day in D&DN than in previous editions (except 4e) and they get at-wills as well. I don't see this as a negative, and I'm someone critical of D&DN.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>True. This doesn't bother me because fighters are still the best at melee fighting. (Although the messed up druid rules cause me to wonder if druids are the best fighter.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree with all of that. Generally only Fort/Ref/Will comes up, but I can't imagine why a game designer thinks an Int saving throw is a good idea when mooks include things like owlbears.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm more worried about monster attack bonuses. AC doesn't scale when you're a fighter but does when you're a rogue. Good luck getting a monster who can challenge one but not the other.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>D&DN was supposed to start with an "easy mode" fighter and have a module for a more complex one. That didn't last. I'm not sure why, but it could be that "easy mode" fighters are much less popular than WotC thought.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Most of those aren't 4eisms. Hit Dice have very little in common with healing surges, and especially at low level they return the playstyle of "huddle in town for three days to heal up" at low-level... which IMO is a negative. Game mode being "easy" by default is something many fans are looking for. At-wills hardly scale in 4e.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not surprised. They didn't build the base properly, so when you add stuff to it it becomes unstable and then falls apart.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it has more sacred cows than 4e. I'm not surprised you can't find players; my group quit after one session.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If Vancian + at-wills means not Vancian, then yes. Casters don't have to rely on throwing darts or crossbows when they've used their good spells.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, I think that was a complaint about terminology rather than the game itself.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm a bit confused by what you mean here. I had to wake up early and my brain cells are going on strike <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite3" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The mathematical foundation is incomplete and WotC cannot predict PC attacks and defenses... so there's no way to balance monsters. Sure DMs can modify monsters to taste, but that's more work for the DM.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They started off with very simple one-dimensional fighters, and after playtester anger they added a dollop of 4e to the fighter. 4e fighters are popular because they're not simple. 4e fighters are unpopular for exactly the same reason. I don't ever want to play a fighter whose only mechanically-supported option is "hit to attack with higher numbers".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There were complaints about the fighter ability to do damage on a miss a while back. Very angry and strenuous complaints. That was after I was done testing 5e so I couldn't talk about it in practice. Also the thread's temperature was too high to really engage in. However, unlike Fireballs, fighters can do damage on a miss <em>at-will</em>, so at least for flavor reasons there's a valid complaint.</p><p></p><p>Hit Dice aren't much like Healing Surges. They're smaller, you get <em>far</em> fewer, leaving you very dependent on magical out-of-combat healing (from the cleric's limited pool, so the cleric is one again spending their resources rather than the wounded PC), and in-combat healing is either minimal (Healing Word) or takes your whole action (Cure Light Wounds; it's touch, so unless you're right next to the wounded ally you need to spend a move to get to them).</p><p></p><p>Due to slow out-of-combat healing, every single cleric should take the potion making specialty. Not good. Also, every party needs a divine spellcaster again, because out-of-combat healing is so slow.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>WotC said the ruleset is largely complete, and of course they're not asking us for advice anymore. I've done playtesting before, and IME the rules will not significantly change by this point. Stuff that was written after playtesting stopped and appearing in the final product are often unbalanced (in an "easy-to-solve" way too). So worries about core weaknesses in the rules are appropriate. At minimum expect lots of errata.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Neither do I. I think a few of 4e's dead cattle were resurrected, but some of 2e's dead cattle were left in the ground.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="(Psi)SeveredHead, post: 6239576, member: 1165"] While I don't agree, I can see why. Casters get fewer spells per day in D&DN than in previous editions (except 4e) and they get at-wills as well. I don't see this as a negative, and I'm someone critical of D&DN. True. This doesn't bother me because fighters are still the best at melee fighting. (Although the messed up druid rules cause me to wonder if druids are the best fighter.) I agree with all of that. Generally only Fort/Ref/Will comes up, but I can't imagine why a game designer thinks an Int saving throw is a good idea when mooks include things like owlbears. I'm more worried about monster attack bonuses. AC doesn't scale when you're a fighter but does when you're a rogue. Good luck getting a monster who can challenge one but not the other. D&DN was supposed to start with an "easy mode" fighter and have a module for a more complex one. That didn't last. I'm not sure why, but it could be that "easy mode" fighters are much less popular than WotC thought. Most of those aren't 4eisms. Hit Dice have very little in common with healing surges, and especially at low level they return the playstyle of "huddle in town for three days to heal up" at low-level... which IMO is a negative. Game mode being "easy" by default is something many fans are looking for. At-wills hardly scale in 4e. I'm not surprised. They didn't build the base properly, so when you add stuff to it it becomes unstable and then falls apart. I think it has more sacred cows than 4e. I'm not surprised you can't find players; my group quit after one session. If Vancian + at-wills means not Vancian, then yes. Casters don't have to rely on throwing darts or crossbows when they've used their good spells. Yes, I think that was a complaint about terminology rather than the game itself. I'm a bit confused by what you mean here. I had to wake up early and my brain cells are going on strike :( The mathematical foundation is incomplete and WotC cannot predict PC attacks and defenses... so there's no way to balance monsters. Sure DMs can modify monsters to taste, but that's more work for the DM. They started off with very simple one-dimensional fighters, and after playtester anger they added a dollop of 4e to the fighter. 4e fighters are popular because they're not simple. 4e fighters are unpopular for exactly the same reason. I don't ever want to play a fighter whose only mechanically-supported option is "hit to attack with higher numbers". There were complaints about the fighter ability to do damage on a miss a while back. Very angry and strenuous complaints. That was after I was done testing 5e so I couldn't talk about it in practice. Also the thread's temperature was too high to really engage in. However, unlike Fireballs, fighters can do damage on a miss [i]at-will[/i], so at least for flavor reasons there's a valid complaint. Hit Dice aren't much like Healing Surges. They're smaller, you get [i]far[/i] fewer, leaving you very dependent on magical out-of-combat healing (from the cleric's limited pool, so the cleric is one again spending their resources rather than the wounded PC), and in-combat healing is either minimal (Healing Word) or takes your whole action (Cure Light Wounds; it's touch, so unless you're right next to the wounded ally you need to spend a move to get to them). Due to slow out-of-combat healing, every single cleric should take the potion making specialty. Not good. Also, every party needs a divine spellcaster again, because out-of-combat healing is so slow. WotC said the ruleset is largely complete, and of course they're not asking us for advice anymore. I've done playtesting before, and IME the rules will not significantly change by this point. Stuff that was written after playtesting stopped and appearing in the final product are often unbalanced (in an "easy-to-solve" way too). So worries about core weaknesses in the rules are appropriate. At minimum expect lots of errata. Neither do I. I think a few of 4e's dead cattle were resurrected, but some of 2e's dead cattle were left in the ground. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why (and how) 5E can succeed
Top