|
Splicer posted:I have highlighted the point where your comparison somewhat falls apart. This is pretty key. The comparison to 4E is strained: someone trying to run 4E as written might say to themselves, "Well gee, I feel like the demand of including magic items regularly cuts into my ability to tell the story the way I want. And monsters have way too much HP and aren't dangerous enough because players can gently caress with their action economy so easily. Also fights are too long. I guess I'll houserule some or all of that." And yeah, a lot of that was fixed by stuff actually published by Wizards, but at this point in 4E's lifecycle it was house rules or nothing. But compare that to 5th, it's not really a close comparison at all. I also have a lot more patience for design weaknesses created by trying something new rather than saying to yourself, "This is a problem 3rd had that was fixed in 4th. I am going to remove the fix and replace it with nothing, re-introducing the problem with no chance to fix it." and then try to sell me the result.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Not counting intentionally minimalist stuff that's basically only got one mechanic. D&D basically only has one mechanic; roll a 20 sided dice and compare it to a number. So, I'm not sure which games you are describing as minimalist. Edit: Wait. I figured it out. You meant dynamics (it's not a distinction that a lot of people would make so I'm being  here). I assume what you are trying to say is RPGs that are significantly less complicated than D&D. If you draw the line where you are probably drawing the line then you have just eliminated 90% of RPGs that exist. Otherwise, the answer is yes, I do play Mouse Guard, and Apocalypse World, and Fate using all the rules. DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
I can honestly say that when I try to run a new system I always try to stick as closely as possible to the rules that are in the book. How the gently caress else are you going to find out if the game works and is fun or not? I'm not going to run Next any time in the near future, but the first thing I would ask for from a DM is a list of what they've changed, because nothing will cause me to drop a game faster than "I do X" "Actually we houseruled that" coming up and blindsiding me more than one time. Legitimate question: How many of you houserule games (including ignoring rules) before you ever play them? Why do you think that's a good idea? Have you even unwittingly houseruled away something cool and only noticed later (eg, a dude I know thought Deadlands "looked confusing" and decided to roll for initiative on 1d20 instead of the poker-hand thing, which managed to a) leave out a thematic part of the game and b) make several character builds loving useless).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I can honestly say that when I try to run a new system I always try to stick as closely as possible to the rules that are in the book. How the gently caress else are you going to find out if the game works and is fun or not? I am working on getting a game of Black Crusade going and the game has a lot of really obvious problems that should be addressed before even session one. While playing a game provides obvious insight over reading it, reading a game and seeing an issue is hardly impossible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Personally I hate rules of any sort because they constrain the amount of fun I can have. Typically I just try and lure people to a table of whatever game system will entice them. Once there I lie and say we need to roam the streets as a group to grab snacks. From there getting nerds to play along in a little bit of the good old ultra violence is a piece of cake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I am working on getting a game of Black Crusade going and the game has a lot of really obvious problems that should be addressed before even session one. While playing a game provides obvious insight over reading it, reading a game and seeing an issue is hardly impossible. I see your point and I don't disagree that it's possible to do this and have it work out. On the other hand, I believe that as long as the system's not obviously broken, then playing it as straight as you can in order to get an idea how the designer intended it to work is a good idea. That falls apart completely when the system is obviously broken. I can't think of any hard and fast way to tell when that's the case, but I'd say it's a good indicator when questions are asked of the lead designer and he responds with "well the way I'd run it is <opposite of the written rule>".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:D&D basically only has one mechanic; roll a 20 sided dice and compare it to a number.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I've never worked out the best terminology for all the "stuff" that games like D&D have. It's not "mechanics" for the reason you said. Components maybe?. Game elements? That's what I've always heard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Game elements? That's what I've always heard. I've heard the term "player resources" used but again, that gets applied to so many things. Same for "crunch". Splicer fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:D&D basically only has one mechanic; roll a 20 sided dice and compare it to a number. I don't think character creation rules really count as 'dynamics', and they're part of the biggest crunchy 'mechanical' bits of the system. What else would you call them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
I think my 'dynamics' is the Big Model's "Techniques", which is not really what I was trying to get at. Components is okay. I'd love to use elements if it weren't so loaded in an RPG environment. I swear there is a post on Vincent Baker's blog that uses an amazing word for this, but I can't find it at the moment. DalaranJ fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Feb 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Splicer posted:So many things fall under the game elements umbrella that you'd think there'd be a specific term for the "powers and weapons and stuff" sub-category. Content.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Content. Building blocks? Except it's not just the bits themselves, it's the interplay/interactions between them. That "constructed" feeling of D&D characters is the thing that always makes D&D feel like D&D to me. DalaranJ posted:I think my 'dynamics' is the Big Model's "Techniques", which is not really what I was trying to get at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
dirtycajun posted:Personally I hate rules of any sort because they constrain the amount of fun I can have. Typically I just try and lure people to a table of whatever game system will entice them. Once there I lie and say we need to roam the streets as a group to grab snacks. But do your streets have hexes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Every four inch cobblestone is its own hex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
My city streets are composed entirely from stone excavated from giant's causeway.Splicer posted:If you find it after the conversation has moved on, PM me the link. Sounds like an article I'd enjoy. If I remember, I will.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Kaysette posted:But do your streets have hexes? Unfortunately street layout in a big city lends itself to grid based.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
dirtycajun posted:Unfortunately street layout in a big city lends itself to grid based. :seattle:
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Ah the WYSIWYG of Shadowrunner territory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
This is just reminding me of that Troll Lord Games dev who described evicting the homeless as a "real life dungeon crawl" and how he wanted to video tape doing it. As can be seen here! That's the great thing about this hobby, any sarcastic over the top unbelievable statement you make is probably something an actual developer has either thought or done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Legitimate question: How many of you houserule games (including ignoring rules) before you ever play them? Why do you think that's a good idea? Have you even unwittingly houseruled away something cool and only noticed later (eg, a dude I know thought Deadlands "looked confusing" and decided to roll for initiative on 1d20 instead of the poker-hand thing, which managed to a) leave out a thematic part of the game and b) make several character builds loving useless). I tried to run Next as close to RAW as I could the first time I did it, even after it had already been discussed up and down how easy it was to be killed at level 1. It was until the session ended with a TPK that came down to "who would roll a 13+ first" that I decided that it really was too easy to die and implemented house rules on my second game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I tried to run Next as close to RAW as I could the first time I did it, even after it had already been discussed up and down how easy it was to be killed at level 1. It was until the session ended with a TPK that came down to "who would roll a 13+ first" that I decided that it really was too easy to die and implemented house rules on my second game. That's exactly what I'm talking about by "run it as close as you can get to RAW and see what happens". Like, maybe everyone saying "X is bad and dumb and should be ignored" is just wrong (or is being an rear end in a top hat, or has completely misunderstood how X actually interacts with the system). It wouldn't be the first time people were horribly wrong about an RPG, would it? For example, I didn't really understand how healing surges worked and interacted with other rules when I first DMed 4e. It would have been really easy to go "welp, this new rule seems pointless and complicated and I'll ignore it", but ignoring healing surges loving ruins 4e and I'm glad I never tried it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:Legitimate question here: Has anyone here, when just playing with friends, and not in some sort of tournament or con setting, had a system where they used every last rule, and invoked them every time they could? Not counting intentionally minimalist stuff that's basically only got one mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I tried to run Next as close to RAW as I could the first time I did it, even after it had already been discussed up and down how easy it was to be killed at level 1. It was until the session ended with a TPK that came down to "who would roll a 13+ first" that I decided that it really was too easy to die and implemented house rules on my second game. So beyond dying easily at level 1 (which is definitely true) what's wrong with 5th? I feel like reading this thread is stumbling into a parallel dimension since everywhere else I go and everyone else I know found 4th too tedious and combat focused and is really enjoying 5th. What's so bad about it? I think my biggest issue so far design choice wise has been the ridiculous arrangement of spells alphabetically in the rulebook, it makes them hard to look up when you're doing it relatively often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
Taear posted:I think my biggest issue so far design choice wise has been the ridiculous arrangement of spells alphabetically in the rulebook, it makes them hard to look up when you're doing it relatively often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
Taear posted:So beyond dying easily at level 1 (which is definitely true) what's wrong with 5th? I feel like reading this thread is stumbling into a parallel dimension since everywhere else I go and everyone else I know found 4th too tedious and combat focused and is really enjoying 5th. There's nothing too terrible about 5th, but there's not much good about it. It's the tepid leftovers of older editions with nothing interesting or unique added.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Like, you can play it and probably have fun, but there's a bunch of awkward stuff that have been solved by much more modern systems like DW and 13th Age and Strike! and so on. Like binary pass/fail resolution, uninteresting combat (unless you're a spellcaster), everything to do with skills and ability scores and d20s. Skim through some random pages in this thread if you want to get an idea. What did you find tedious about 4E? Because 5E is less tedious only insofar as there is less to do in combat, since you pretty much don't make any meaningful choices. That's not really a game. I really hate the d20. Given how small the bonuses from ability scores and stuff are, it's way too swingy for what it's supposedly representing. A dude with 6 strength is an anemic weakling and a dude with 20 strength is a world-class championship weightlifter, and if you were going to armwrestle a DM could very reasonable propose an opposed strength check since that's pretty much exactly what strength is supposed to be for. And yet there's still a 20% chance the d20s come up with the anemic weakling soundly beating the championship weightlifter. Even if D&D is trying to be a simulationist system (instead of something much more fun) it's a really horrible mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Taear posted:So beyond dying easily at level 1 (which is definitely true) what's wrong with 5th? I feel like reading this thread is stumbling into a parallel dimension since everywhere else I go and everyone else I know found 4th too tedious and combat focused and is really enjoying 5th. If you're at all familiar with the previous editions, the short answer is that it's a very well-polished, houseruled version of 3rd Edition, but unlearns a lot of the lessons of 4th. Like, if you wanted to recreate 5th Edition in 3.5: * Give everyone full BAB so you can forget about Touch Attacks * Make full BAB start at +2 and only goes up by 1 every 4 levels * Make BAB apply to spell DCs too * Change the skill system so that its just trained or untrained. You roll [d20 + attribute bonus] if you're untrained in it, else [d20 + attribute bonus + BAB] * Rename BAB to Proficiency * Change monster AC scaling so that a player never needs +x equipment, just the bonus from * Change monster attack bonus scaling to be as slow as Proficiency, except oops players don't get Proficiency added to their AC, so they do need +x AC equipment anyway * Delete feats entirely (except when you leave it open as an optional rule) * Give the martial classes a token number of spell-like abilities * Refuse to fix the monster construction from 3.5 And that's something like 90% of the game right there. They cut of a lot of fiddly stuff, but what's left isn't really any better because the foundations are still there. Combat is faster simply out of an utter lack of anything to do, but then slows down and turns into rocket tag anyway if you ever get out of the first 3 shitfarmer levels. Taear posted:I think my biggest issue so far design choice wise has been the ridiculous arrangement of spells alphabetically in the rulebook, it makes them hard to look up when you're doing it relatively often. I'm going to defend it by saying that in the context of "monsters use spells too, because 5th Edition does not inherit the Powers system of 4th Edition", it makes sense. You don't want Thunderwave to be inside the Wizard Spell List section when you're fighting a Centaur NPC that casts it by slamming his hoof really really hard, you want it to be in the T section of the global spell list. Of course, they wouldn't have to do that if the basic building block of any ability in the game was simple enough to be printable right on the monster's statblock, but well you know. Boing posted:I really hate the d20. Given how small the bonuses from ability scores and stuff are, it's way too swingy for what it's supposedly representing. A dude with 6 strength is an anemic weakling and a dude with 20 strength is a world-class championship weightlifter, and if you were going to armwrestle a DM could very reasonable propose an opposed strength check since that's pretty much exactly what strength is supposed to be for. And yet there's still a 20% chance the d20s come up with the anemic weakling soundly beating the championship weightlifter. Even if D&D is trying to be a simulationist system (instead of something much more fun) it's a really horrible mechanic. Have anyone ever tried using 3d6 to play their D&D, any edition, instead? I know that it was an official variant rule of 3.5 and I was toying with the idea to make rolls more consistent. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Taear posted:So beyond dying easily at level 1 (which is definitely true) what's wrong with 5th? I feel like reading this thread is stumbling into a parallel dimension since everywhere else I go and everyone else I know found 4th too tedious and combat focused and is really enjoying 5th. Are they actually enjoying the system itself, or just their group's silly roleplaying stuff that could happen just as easily in any other game?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Taear posted:what's wrong with 5th? What's so bad about it? 1. The text of the PHB expressly states that you can't play the game without magic, yet they still decided it was fine to include classes that are defined as "Doesn't use magic." It's prejudicial caster supremacy BS, basically. Like, a lot of Paladin spells could've been powers ripped right out of 4th edition (and that's fine because Paladin's are magic!) but as for the Fighter, you'll get nothing and like it.  Like, granted, 4e ended up having a lot of feat and power bloat, but they basically decided to throw that out, exclusively to the detriment of Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians, and gave them not much interesting in return. Assassins and Eldritch Knights need INT on classes that get little use out of it, and already need to spread their scores around to begin with. (At least they stated that rolling stats was the preferred method, right?  ) Not to mention that the Stealth rules are so poorly written as to require DM houseruling in order to function, so your Assassin's main combat feature may or may not work, at all.2. A lot of feats are garbage and the design decision to make you choose between them and an Ability Score Increase is also garbage. 3. Saves scale poorly: Your "good" saves basically just keep pace, whereas your "poor" saves fall behind as you level, because Spell DCs scale up. And they decided to have saves for each of the 6 ability scores, even though CON/DEX/WIS makes up like 95% of the saves called for by spells. Oh, and the design for class-based save proficiency VERY transparently demonstrates that they were well aware of this, and decided to keep 6 saves (plus AC) anyway. (Keeping in mind 3.5 had 3 types of AC and 3 saves, 4th Edition had 4 defenses, and 13th Age has 3..) 4. Advantage/Disadvantage is a good mechanic from a simplicity as well as a math standpoint (they did a good job of slimming down numbers bloat, in some areas) but it's applied inconsistently. For example, if you give a spellcaster "Disadvantage on attack rolls" they probably don't care because most of what they do doesn't involve attack rolls. (Oh, and attack rolls always target AC, even if you're using a spell where it might make more sense for it to target Fort/Ref/Will or call for a save, in this case. And supposedly there are rules to backport this stuff in the DMG, but it appears to be on shaky ground.) The other thing is Advantage/Disadvantage comes almost exclusively from -- you guessed it -- casting spells; Barbarians can basically get advantage at-will on their melee attacks, but they have to grant advantage to attacks against themselves for a round to do so. And in the 36 pages of this PbP, the barbarian has never opted to use this feature, even once. The other problem is that Advantage gets applied to stuff where Combat Advantage might have applied in 4e, so +2 becomes "mathematically equivalent to about +5 but also about twice as likely to crit" and nobody seemed to consider the implications of that. 5. Short Rests are too long, so if your class' abilities are refreshed on a short rest, and it doesn't "narratively make sense" for you to be able to rest (i.e. Being in a dungeon), then you're SOL. This is basically entirely DM-dependent, so there isn't going to be any sort of system consistency from one table to another. ... And that's just off the top of my head, and on 4 hours of sleep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
They made garbage healing rules. Clerics can either choose to be healbots, or they can choose to be very bad at healing and still do interesting things. (There is a spell that allows you to heal and still be interesting, but it's a bad heal and scales terribly) Clerics being able to be perfectly good healers AND still bash people in the head every round was one of the best things about 4e, and one of the other things was that you didn't need to have a cleric in your party because you could have a warlord, or an artificer, or a shaman, or any other leader class and still have a "healer" around. These two things are basically gone from 5e. Healing is kinda weak until the Heal spell shows up, which blows it all out of the water and ensures that your clerical life will be 90% casting Heal spells whenever there's any real threat. Don't even get me started on having to roll dice for downtime healing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Are they actually enjoying the system itself, or just their group's silly roleplaying stuff that could happen just as easily in any other game? Most seem to be specifically enjoying the system. I have friends that exclusively played 3.5 and have now moved to 5th. I guess to me 4th (which I only played a few times, I'll admit) felt more focused on combat. That the combat was the most important part of the game and other things weren't worth it. I've only ever been a DM in real life D&D and with 4th edition I felt like I had to make my player's characters for them if they didn't have access to the rulebook because there were so many variables that you HAD to read the PHB for. I do totally agree with the feat part. That is the strangest decision to me. I've played D&D since 2nd edition and always found that the inclusion of feats in 3rd was one of the best things they did, making them optional seems like such a weird choice. P.dot's thing about the advantage/disadvantage doesn't feel right though. There's plenty of stuff that gives it, not just spells. Yes they're DM discretional but even the pre-printed adventures have tonnes of examples of stuff happening to give advantage. In a slight aside it's weird to me that they still use feet and not meters. I know it's an american system but it's so hard for me to envision and all of us are a bit confused at times...
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Taear posted:So beyond dying easily at level 1 (which is definitely true) what's wrong with 5th? I feel like reading this thread is stumbling into a parallel dimension since everywhere else I go and everyone else I know found 4th too tedious and combat focused and is really enjoying 5th. If "quick combat, says D&D on the cover, fighters can suck it" are the only metrics you're going to judge 5E by, it's an excellent game. If you have pretty much any other requirements, it's just... not very good. Splicer fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Gort posted:They made garbage healing rules. This, too. With everything being so swingy, it's only really worthwhile to heal someone if they're at 0 HP and you aren't spending your Action to do it (so, Healing Word, always). 6. Skills. They basically invented "investigation" for wizards to be good at, and made Nature key off INT for no particular reason, while still having Survival as a thing. Because of the way they decided to implement "The 3 Pillars", you're either mathematically better than everyone else (Bards, Rogues, Knowledge Clerics) can conceivably be at skills, or else everyone's on about the same par. Except Wizards can get Portents and Clerics can spam Guidance out of combat. Not to mention, if you're a Barbarian you need STR for all of your combat features, and (at least) DEX for your AC, and probably CON (if not for AC, then HP because you're almost strictly melee-based). And chances are you're gonna be using armor that'll give you disadvantage on Stealth, leaving with a whopping total of 3 skills you can conceivably be good at.. and only 1 of which is a class skill (It's worth noting that the 4e Essentials Slayer and post-Essentials Berserker have the same screwy "ability scores not lining up with skills" problem.) Oh, and you can't dump DEX either, because literally none of your Rage features work if you're using Heavy Armor. Fighters are basically in the same boat; the real problem is that both of these class are supposed to be something resembling the masters of combat to make up for their lack of skill competence, but they just aren't, while being boring at it at the same time. edit: Taear posted:I've only ever been a DM in real life D&D and with 4th edition I felt like I had to make my player's characters for them if they didn't have access to the rulebook because there were so many variables that you HAD to read the PHB for.  What? How does ANYONE play any version of D&D without reading the PHB? P.d0t fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
By reading Heroes of the Fallen Lands or the Rules Compendium 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Have anyone ever tried using 3d6 to play their D&D, any edition, instead? I know that it was an official variant rule of 3.5 and I was toying with the idea to make rolls more consistent. Some goon posted this (probably in the 4e thread?) back in the day, and I saved it in my notes:
Although if the point is to get roughly the same % odds of doing the same stuff, I'm not entirely sure what the net gain would be.. 
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Some goon posted this (probably in the 4e thread?) back in the day, and I saved is in my notes: Advantage messes with it a bit though, because while the average roll only goes up by about +2 (capping out at about a +24% to-hit, averaging lower), your crit rate triples (doubles for the 18 to 20 equivalent). Splicer fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Mar 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Although if the point is to get roughly the same % odds of doing the same stuff, I'm not entirely sure what the net gain would be.. Oh no the point isn't to get the same % chance for things to happen: +5 attack bonus vs 14 AC in 5th Edition is 60% with a 1d20, 74% with a 3d6, and the effect of a +1 is greater. You'd just make up special ranges for triggering crits (and auto-misses) because getting a nat 18 is a lot rarer than a nat 20. P.d0t posted:How does ANYONE play any version of D&D without reading the PHB? Basic is simple enough to be played without the book if you're willing to explain/separately write down a spellcaster's spells (of which there are only a few). Attacking is just a d20 roll based on your index-card character sheet, and so is d20-roll-under-attribute for any "skill checks" I don't think you could pull that off much farther than that though. Taear posted:I guess to me 4th (which I only played a few times, I'll admit) felt more focused on combat. That the combat was the most important part of the game and other things weren't worth it. Don't take this the wrong way, but "roleplaying" has never been more or less important across these three editions. You make something up, the DM says it happens, or it doesn't, or it COULD happen and please roll for it with x skill, y attribute modifier as bonuses. The skill system in 4th is just using one of 3.5's Unearthed Arcana variant rules where you tag a skill as Trained or Untrained instead of having to distribute skill points separately. There's not really anything that would stop you from roleplaying in 4th that you couldn't already do in 3rd Edition. The difference is that player agency is a lot more balanced across characters because everyone can access abilities with direct mechanical or narrative effects, as opposed to other editions where magic-users are on their own plane relative to everyone else. Taear posted:I do totally agree with the feat part. That is the strangest decision to me. I've played D&D since 2nd edition and always found that the inclusion of feats in 3rd was one of the best things they did, making them optional seems like such a weird choice. I'd like to be clear that I consider the complete removal of feats to not necessarily be a good thing because it didn't address the issues that prior Editions had with it: they were very unevenly balanced, swinging from essential combat bonuses to RP fodder, and there were way too many of them. 5th Edition only addresses this insofar as you can ignore them completely, which sucks for key class functionality that's tucked away in a feat, or you can implement them, in which case they're still unevenly balanced, moreso in the context of they're competing with a +1 attribute modifier, and there's nothing stopping the design team from creating a lot of later feat bloat anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
4e isn't any more or less focused on combat/roleplay than 3.5 or 5e; it just has a really good, well built tactical combat system as its notable feature, so it gets saddled with a reputation for not supporting skills or roleplaying for no real reason. 5e skills & the rules surrounding them are functionally the same as 4e with a few minor differences, neither edition is better or worse at facilitating roleplay. I don't understand how anyone reads the rules for either and comes to a different conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 16:42
|
|