Sacrosanct
Legend
You know, changes in perception is a funny thing. I think all too often people end up entrenching themselves into their biases and hell will freeze over before they admit that what they were arguing against had merits.
When 4e came out, I ignored it completely. Which wasn't hard, admittedly, because I had largely been ignoring 3e anyway and stuck with AD&D. But 4e really didn't feel like D&D to me.
Many of the "problems" I've described here are more 5e problems than AD&D ones, largely due to how AD&D's rules are. But even I have to admit, many of these problems can be resolved by borrowing from 4e. Specifically having abilities or maneuvers that help allies, buff defense, or debuff enemies. As mentioned earlier, 5e is built around hit points and as much DPR to end the encounter as early as possible. I understand why. I enjoy 5e as a game. But this nagging thing in my OP? I think borrowing a bit more from 4e would have been a good thing. IMO anyway.
It's weird. As I'm getting older, I see more appeal with a game like 4e. Still not my jam, really, but I can see value in several things with that rules system.
When 4e came out, I ignored it completely. Which wasn't hard, admittedly, because I had largely been ignoring 3e anyway and stuck with AD&D. But 4e really didn't feel like D&D to me.
Many of the "problems" I've described here are more 5e problems than AD&D ones, largely due to how AD&D's rules are. But even I have to admit, many of these problems can be resolved by borrowing from 4e. Specifically having abilities or maneuvers that help allies, buff defense, or debuff enemies. As mentioned earlier, 5e is built around hit points and as much DPR to end the encounter as early as possible. I understand why. I enjoy 5e as a game. But this nagging thing in my OP? I think borrowing a bit more from 4e would have been a good thing. IMO anyway.
It's weird. As I'm getting older, I see more appeal with a game like 4e. Still not my jam, really, but I can see value in several things with that rules system.

