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 does 5E SUCK?
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="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 6635602" data-attributes="member: 6777737"><p>Oh, every edition has treated light like that. Just use it for determining how far something casts light. Rule #1 for vision is always, "You already know how light and vision work." The only weird bit is Darkvision, because you can't see anybody else's Darkvision light, and <em>darkness</em> spells, because there's no analog in the real world for magical darkness.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. "Rulings not rules" doesn't mean Oberoni isn't waiting in the wings. Still, I was tired of 3e and 4e telling us the world would end if we changed a +2 to a +3 or making us feel like we had to wait for the Rules Team to issue Officially Canonical Errata to make any rules change. Encouraging people to let the rules slide in the name of the game is not a bad thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, stat heirarchy is pretty clear: Dex, Wis, Con, Cha, Str, Int. Dex is a bit too good. Saves and skills are focused in few attributes. Cha is key to too many classes. Int doesn't do enough period. I mean... faster training? Extra languages? <em>Something?</em> I'd like Warlocks to be Con based, actually, as their bodies are conduits for alien powers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, Wizards will do well because a) they'll have proficiency, and b) they'll have a high Int. Still, it's the 3e argument for Wizards having a lot of skills. It's a consequence of the existing mechanics rather than giving mechanics to the support the flavor. The end result is acceptable, but awkward.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nah, they just assume Level 1 will last one game session <em>at most</em>. I like feeling like an apprentice at level 1.</p><p></p><p>As for my list:</p><p></p><p>The organization of spells and spell lists in the PHB. The spells don't list the classes that can use them, and the spell lists don't tell you what the spells do or what school the spells are (in spite of multiple game mechanics that rely on it). I understand that there were problems with the 3e shortened list where players would assume the shortened list was what the spell did, but they've made the spell lists in the PHB actively hostile to use. Seriously, could there be <em>some</em> kind of cross indexing here? Can we at the very least put page numbers in the spell lists, or list in spell descriptions which classes have the spell on the spell list at the start of the damn chapter?</p><p></p><p>The way everything is written through a filter. Like, I get that they want stealth rules to be intentionally vague. I just wish they had <em>literally stated</em>, "These rules are intentionally vague as no system can adequately account for all situations without being too complicated to actually use in play. Your DM is intended to make rulings for stealth. What follows the general guidelines that should be used for what stealth should be capable of doing." It's like visiting the Wizard of Oz. Stop hiding the designer's intent behind the curtain and the light and sound show all the time. You know, we can make better house rules when we know <em>why</em> a rule exists as it does. Even if this is covered in an Appendix or in the DMG, give us some context!</p><p></p><p>GWM and Sharpshooter. Because I hate math in combat, and they're kind of stupid at high level.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 6635602, member: 6777737"] Oh, every edition has treated light like that. Just use it for determining how far something casts light. Rule #1 for vision is always, "You already know how light and vision work." The only weird bit is Darkvision, because you can't see anybody else's Darkvision light, and [I]darkness[/I] spells, because there's no analog in the real world for magical darkness. Agreed. "Rulings not rules" doesn't mean Oberoni isn't waiting in the wings. Still, I was tired of 3e and 4e telling us the world would end if we changed a +2 to a +3 or making us feel like we had to wait for the Rules Team to issue Officially Canonical Errata to make any rules change. Encouraging people to let the rules slide in the name of the game is not a bad thing. Yes, stat heirarchy is pretty clear: Dex, Wis, Con, Cha, Str, Int. Dex is a bit too good. Saves and skills are focused in few attributes. Cha is key to too many classes. Int doesn't do enough period. I mean... faster training? Extra languages? [I]Something?[/I] I'd like Warlocks to be Con based, actually, as their bodies are conduits for alien powers. Well, Wizards will do well because a) they'll have proficiency, and b) they'll have a high Int. Still, it's the 3e argument for Wizards having a lot of skills. It's a consequence of the existing mechanics rather than giving mechanics to the support the flavor. The end result is acceptable, but awkward. Nah, they just assume Level 1 will last one game session [I]at most[/I]. I like feeling like an apprentice at level 1. As for my list: The organization of spells and spell lists in the PHB. The spells don't list the classes that can use them, and the spell lists don't tell you what the spells do or what school the spells are (in spite of multiple game mechanics that rely on it). I understand that there were problems with the 3e shortened list where players would assume the shortened list was what the spell did, but they've made the spell lists in the PHB actively hostile to use. Seriously, could there be [I]some[/I] kind of cross indexing here? Can we at the very least put page numbers in the spell lists, or list in spell descriptions which classes have the spell on the spell list at the start of the damn chapter? The way everything is written through a filter. Like, I get that they want stealth rules to be intentionally vague. I just wish they had [I]literally stated[/I], "These rules are intentionally vague as no system can adequately account for all situations without being too complicated to actually use in play. Your DM is intended to make rulings for stealth. What follows the general guidelines that should be used for what stealth should be capable of doing." It's like visiting the Wizard of Oz. Stop hiding the designer's intent behind the curtain and the light and sound show all the time. You know, we can make better house rules when we know [I]why[/I] a rule exists as it does. Even if this is covered in an Appendix or in the DMG, give us some context! GWM and Sharpshooter. Because I hate math in combat, and they're kind of stupid at high level. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
Top