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 LIVE! 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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6638697" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Ah, the "confuse playtest and final product" error strikes again. My bad.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I certainly agree that <em>most</em> of the base list, and even much of Oath of the Ancients, is combat-specific. I think you're selling Misty Step a bit short though--being able to teleport 30 feet is nothing to sneeze at for exploration. Especially if your DM doesn't oppose the idea that it can be 30 feet <em>up or down</em>, as long as you meet the "you can see it" requirement.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is a reason I did not mention it. The Eldritch Knight "cheats." That is, I freely agree that it provides utility to the class, but only because it fundamentally alters what the class <em>is</em>. The EK is a caster. Half, sure, but "a caster" nonetheless. No other type of Fighter is a caster. Utility benefits are, thus, still gated behind <em>choosing to play a spellcasting class</em>, and I think that's a pile of sh*t.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except...they can't actually do that? They can check to see if <strong>two</strong> out of a list of things is better, the same, or worse than their own. That list is: A physical ability score (not super sure what use this is?), AC, current HP, or total/Fighter class level. And even then, it's STILL almost purely about combat, just in a (IMO pedantically) "recon" sense--and only gives you "higher, lower, same." I'd still call that a "guess" as to whether you can take him or not; obviously the two stats you'd want to check every time are current HP and either AC or whatever you <em>guess</em> the enemy</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I do come from a 4e background, but I fail to see how that's relevant. The vast majority of my experience with Paladin immunity stuff actually comes from playing B/X and Dungeon World.</p><p></p><p> Commune With Nature lets you ask open-ended questions that can relate to any of the pillars (exploration, socialization, or combat), and gives you ALL facts relevant to those questions, without resorting to crappy "less than/greater than/equal to" obscurantism or even the Divine Sense "well you know *where* it is but nothing else" stuff. Know Your Enemy gives you a rough comparison against your own stats, and no more. For example, if you're a fourth-level Fighter and you check to see an opponent's Fighter level, you could get "higher than yours." Well, how *much* higher? You have no idea. Could be just level 5, could be level 15, you have no way of knowing. Even if you pair it with HP, you only know if they're higher or lower *than your own.* Perhaps the guard doesn't have very high HP, but has amazing AC. You'll never know, because you can only check two things. I mean, <em>maybe</em> you could...I hesitate to say "houserule," more like "house interpretation" it, so that you could repeat it once a day against the same enemy (since your old info COULD expire, thus permitting checking again), but as it stands, the text doesn't support being able to do it multiple times (else why would you be limited to only 2 comparisons?) It doesn't *contradict* using it more than once, but it would require reading in something that isn't there--not even by "logical extension" or whatever.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't personally think the Paladin's utility is nearly as limited as <em>most</em> of the backgrounds; I haven't really dug through them to know which ones are top-tier and which ones stink, though, so perhaps I've only looked at the "meh" or worse backgrounds. I definitely think that the Fighter-derived class features are barely at (or even below) the level of every background I've read, *other* than spells because spells are high-utility by nature (something I felt didn't need to be said, but our conversation has proven otherwise).</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>No, see, I completely agree with you, and I *don't* think it's a matter of taste. Full casters (with the possible exception of the Sorcerer) blow absolutely <em>everyone</em> else out of the water in terms of out-of-combat ability. For exploration and socialization, we're back to having a tier system, and the Fighter is smack dab at the very, very bottom, bringing less to the table than many options for universal character components (like backgrounds). Appropriating the old Tier system from 3e, Druids are absolutely the upper limit of Tier 1, while Fighters scrape the bottom of Tier 5, and Paladins lie somewhere around low Tier 3 or high Tier 4. They're straight-up better in all (utility) ways than Fighters, capable of doing significantly more and more interesting things than the Fighter can, but they're far from the *best* utility characters. If they were, Paladins would be overwhelmingly broken in the context of 5e, being *easily* the second-best combatants, competent support, AND second-best utility would be...well, the new CoDzilla. As it stands, the Paladin seems like it trades a very, very small amount of combat ability for a compared-to-the-Fighter <em>enormous</em> increase in utility.</p><p></p><p>I mean, yes, if you set your standard as "the stuff a Druid or Tome-Warlock can do," then the differences between the Fighter and...well, pretty much *anyone* else, even *Rogues,* are small. But that's like Einstein or Marilyn vos Savant as your intelligence standard and wondering why you can't really distinguish between someone with a mild learning disability and someone with exactly median intelligence. Don't get me wrong, I think *everyone* should have as much flavorful, interesting, flexible utility potential as the Druid or Tome-Warlock does. Instead of defining the Tome-Warlock as 1, and therefore needing to describe the Fighter as (say) 0.001, isn't it easier to say the Fighter has 1 (smallest whole-number amount) and the Warlock has 1000? The Paladin might still only be 15 or 20, but it certainly seems like a lot more to compare 1 to 20 as opposed to comparing 0.020 to 0.001.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6638697, member: 6790260"] Ah, the "confuse playtest and final product" error strikes again. My bad. I certainly agree that [I]most[/I] of the base list, and even much of Oath of the Ancients, is combat-specific. I think you're selling Misty Step a bit short though--being able to teleport 30 feet is nothing to sneeze at for exploration. Especially if your DM doesn't oppose the idea that it can be 30 feet [I]up or down[/I], as long as you meet the "you can see it" requirement. There is a reason I did not mention it. The Eldritch Knight "cheats." That is, I freely agree that it provides utility to the class, but only because it fundamentally alters what the class [I]is[/I]. The EK is a caster. Half, sure, but "a caster" nonetheless. No other type of Fighter is a caster. Utility benefits are, thus, still gated behind [I]choosing to play a spellcasting class[/I], and I think that's a pile of sh*t. Except...they can't actually do that? They can check to see if [B]two[/B] out of a list of things is better, the same, or worse than their own. That list is: A physical ability score (not super sure what use this is?), AC, current HP, or total/Fighter class level. And even then, it's STILL almost purely about combat, just in a (IMO pedantically) "recon" sense--and only gives you "higher, lower, same." I'd still call that a "guess" as to whether you can take him or not; obviously the two stats you'd want to check every time are current HP and either AC or whatever you [I]guess[/I] the enemy I do come from a 4e background, but I fail to see how that's relevant. The vast majority of my experience with Paladin immunity stuff actually comes from playing B/X and Dungeon World. Commune With Nature lets you ask open-ended questions that can relate to any of the pillars (exploration, socialization, or combat), and gives you ALL facts relevant to those questions, without resorting to crappy "less than/greater than/equal to" obscurantism or even the Divine Sense "well you know *where* it is but nothing else" stuff. Know Your Enemy gives you a rough comparison against your own stats, and no more. For example, if you're a fourth-level Fighter and you check to see an opponent's Fighter level, you could get "higher than yours." Well, how *much* higher? You have no idea. Could be just level 5, could be level 15, you have no way of knowing. Even if you pair it with HP, you only know if they're higher or lower *than your own.* Perhaps the guard doesn't have very high HP, but has amazing AC. You'll never know, because you can only check two things. I mean, [I]maybe[/I] you could...I hesitate to say "houserule," more like "house interpretation" it, so that you could repeat it once a day against the same enemy (since your old info COULD expire, thus permitting checking again), but as it stands, the text doesn't support being able to do it multiple times (else why would you be limited to only 2 comparisons?) It doesn't *contradict* using it more than once, but it would require reading in something that isn't there--not even by "logical extension" or whatever. I don't personally think the Paladin's utility is nearly as limited as [I]most[/I] of the backgrounds; I haven't really dug through them to know which ones are top-tier and which ones stink, though, so perhaps I've only looked at the "meh" or worse backgrounds. I definitely think that the Fighter-derived class features are barely at (or even below) the level of every background I've read, *other* than spells because spells are high-utility by nature (something I felt didn't need to be said, but our conversation has proven otherwise). No, see, I completely agree with you, and I *don't* think it's a matter of taste. Full casters (with the possible exception of the Sorcerer) blow absolutely [I]everyone[/I] else out of the water in terms of out-of-combat ability. For exploration and socialization, we're back to having a tier system, and the Fighter is smack dab at the very, very bottom, bringing less to the table than many options for universal character components (like backgrounds). Appropriating the old Tier system from 3e, Druids are absolutely the upper limit of Tier 1, while Fighters scrape the bottom of Tier 5, and Paladins lie somewhere around low Tier 3 or high Tier 4. They're straight-up better in all (utility) ways than Fighters, capable of doing significantly more and more interesting things than the Fighter can, but they're far from the *best* utility characters. If they were, Paladins would be overwhelmingly broken in the context of 5e, being *easily* the second-best combatants, competent support, AND second-best utility would be...well, the new CoDzilla. As it stands, the Paladin seems like it trades a very, very small amount of combat ability for a compared-to-the-Fighter [I]enormous[/I] increase in utility. I mean, yes, if you set your standard as "the stuff a Druid or Tome-Warlock can do," then the differences between the Fighter and...well, pretty much *anyone* else, even *Rogues,* are small. But that's like Einstein or Marilyn vos Savant as your intelligence standard and wondering why you can't really distinguish between someone with a mild learning disability and someone with exactly median intelligence. Don't get me wrong, I think *everyone* should have as much flavorful, interesting, flexible utility potential as the Druid or Tome-Warlock does. Instead of defining the Tome-Warlock as 1, and therefore needing to describe the Fighter as (say) 0.001, isn't it easier to say the Fighter has 1 (smallest whole-number amount) and the Warlock has 1000? The Paladin might still only be 15 or 20, but it certainly seems like a lot more to compare 1 to 20 as opposed to comparing 0.020 to 0.001. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
Top