Search results

Part of it is familiarity. I have modified 2E to my satisfaction in the past, and am still familiar enough with both 2E and my modifications that I could start a 2E game tomorrow with full confidence. I even might be tempted to try to add in some modern bits like defender mechanics, at-will...

I prefer running a much higher powered player-centric game than 5E tends to be. From my viewpoint, it would be easier to get to where I want to be starting with 2E or 3.5E than with 5E, and I could manage it with 13th Age or 4E more or less out of the box. The reasons you like running 5E don't...

Low level, low powered AD&D and 3E met my definition of mundane. It's why I rarely played those systems as such. 5E seems so far along the same lines, but I have a feeling it will become less mundane more quickly than vanilla AD&D would. In AD&D however, I would feel better about running it...

All very true, and something I had left out. Its more than just skill, it's also inclination. With defined abilities, I'm inclined to be aggressive and assertive. With free-form, I'm inclined to be passive and disengaged. It doesn't really succeed in what you describe IMO. Given that I take a...

Here's the thing: 5E would not be my choice for the sort of game 5E seems to be trying to be. My game for that would either be a heavily modified 2E or a heavily restricted 3.5E. 5E to me is less appealing than either of those for that sort of game.

It's kind of both. PCs lack interesting things to do, monsters tend to be boring, and it's all over too fast.

I view them as separate. I don't care for the meatgrinder levels, and as far as I'm concerned they are something to either gloss over or preferably skip altogether. They aren't a part of D&D I care about, and when I talk about D&D I'm invariably not talking about them. So when I'm talking about...

It is an opinion whether or not it was a good thing. I would however argue that combat has been de-emphasized to a degree greater than any previous edition. 4E--5E combat being de-emphasized compared to 4E is fairly obvious 3E--De-emphasized compared to feature rich 3E isn't really a question...

After all the drama during the 4E era and the 5E playtest, I'm a lot less inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. This thread has only reinforced that, and the post I was responding to was a pretty clear example of why. Even I think 4E combat took too long. The trouble is 5E threw the...

At level 3 in 5E you start being less fragile, and as you level you become somewhat less mundane than before. Fragility and the old school meat grinder levels are a separate issue from mundanity. Mundanity is more about spamming "I swing a sword/cantrip" and taking actions the average person...

All of that is kind of beside the point. The point isn't becoming a superhero at some point in the game. The point is approaching the game as a hero and focusing on your hero abilities to interact with the world. You described having the freedom to do most anything as empowering. In my...

Condescending, and fairly inaccurate. I liked 4E because it did combat well, not because it was combat centric. There were non-combat reasons as well. The character building side of 4E was very good, and 4E focused on being "big damn heroes" from level 1, as opposed to mundanity. Roleplaying was...

I have to second this. The assertion that all systems are the same or that system doesn't matter does not match my experience. Take me and this thread. This whole thread is about my approach to gaming not being as well supported by 5E compared to earlier editions. That in and of itself is at...

This kind of depends on your approach to D&D. If your approach to D&D is that your PC is a regular person taking up adventuring, the above is fairly accurate. If your approach to D&D is that your PC is a "big damn hero" well above the capabilities of mere mortals, you look first and foremost to...

I can't agree with this at all. I've played oWoD and nWoD extensively, and would definitely argue both are far less combat focused than any edition of D&D at a system level.

It's more along the lines of something I have heard repeatedly when talking about RPGs with people who don't play D&D but do play other systems. They cite too much combat focus as the primary reason they don't play D&D. I heard it a lot back at rpg.net before they started banning everybody, and...

1. When designing 5E, they seem to have put a higher priority on making the feat system optional than making it good. Hence the issue in this thread. 2. Looking at 5E from the DM's chair, I'm not sure there is a good solution. I'd like to make the stat boosts automatic and let people pick feats...

Colorful metaphors seem a bit over your head. If all you want to do is trade passive aggressive personal attacks and 4chan rhetoric, we should do that in private and not hassle the rest of this thread.

If you want to make the argument that D&D isn't about fighting monsters, make that argument. Otherwise your just playing stupid Internet word games. Then make that argument. I'm curious to hear it.

I get the real sense, in this thread and on the whole that there are a significant group of people for whom D&D supporting their style means D&D excluding somebody else's style that doesn't meet their definition of D&D. During the playtest discussions for 5E, there were a lot of people who were...