Search results

Every class's power set in PHB1 was utterly distinct; I do not believe there was a single shared power (EDIT: and even if this is not literally true, it is very close to it). But by all means do not let facts get in the way of your edition warring. Really, I missed this news. Link? _ glass.

I know that "tier 1" means something very different in 5e from what it means in 3.P, but this still made me do a double take! :D :giggle: :unsure: I am pretty sure the least successful edition of D&D was Holmes Basic. What expectations did it violate? _ glass.

If the claim had been "a lot of people believe (falsely) that 4e classes all have identical mechanics", then I would not have argued. A lot of people do believe that, due in no small part to oft-repeated claims on the Internet like the ones I have been rebutting. Ah, Beastmaster. That makes...

Perception I agree with, but Athletics? Maybe if it replaced Strength. Otherwise the last thing Strength needs is more things taken away from it! I think you're rather unfairly painting "5e players" with a very broad brush there. _ glass.

If you make a claim, and then later, when called on the first claim, make a different claim and try to pretend that was what you were claiming all along, that is moving the goalposts. Also, trying to pretend that PHB3 is some obscure splat on the level of MoI is not classy. At the end of the...

Do Hasbro have any other Hero* properties in the vault? The terrain won't be, if it is in any way compatible with the old HeroScape. The minis could be on smaller bases without breaking anything, though. _ glass.

Headmaster?

I do not think actually making the powers the same across classes (the way that edition warrior like to pretend they are) would have helped 4e! Whereas I think that holds up to 4e, then the 5e version is both worse and explained in a way that make 3.0 look like a model of clarity. What the...

Not a story. It factually happened in this very thread, for everyone to see. 5e did not exist at the time. It's unprecedented success was not foreseen even by WotC. So long after both PHB3 and Essentials came out? Anyway, the claim was that 4e did not have things that it had. That it arguably...

You said that a bonus action is an action, when I believe it is not. Either you were confused when you wrote that post (if only momentarily) or I have been confused for years. Either way, confusion has been witnessed. _ glass.

I cannot tell you that, because I have no idea what you are talking about (unless you are talking about the variant action economy from Pathfinder Unchained for PF1 that was the precursor for PF2's, but that seems unlikely). I do not get this one either. _ glass.

So you admit that you knew there were non-AEDU classes in 4e (although you are mistaken about their only being in Essentials), but are doubling down on there not being? Interesting approach. Also, despite quoting it, you ignore the point that even for EADU classes with exactly the same number of...

@James Gasik's scenario was about magic making a martial irrelevant. Yours was about other magic making a magic-user irrelevant. Also, the wizard can just walk out of the antimagic cone, whereas the fighter can very much not walk out of the forcecage. IOW, these are not symmetrical, so no your...

That is an interesting question. The other question is, if 4e was published later to coincide with the various positive externalities that 5e benefited from, what else would have been published for 3.5 in the meantime? _ glass.

Absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt. Well I am not sure the public playtest is necessary or even helpful, but if it had the rest.... EDIT: On reflection, if we were stuck with Keep on the Shadowfell that would hurt 4e. If 4e could have kicked of with an introductory adventure as good as...

That is hardly a rebuttal to you need to be able to do basic multiplication. Surely a typical six-year-old could be expected to do that (I know I could do it when I was six, and so could my younger brother, my friends' children, and my nieces when they were that age). EDIT: The typical...

Whats wrong with barkskin? They can absolutely be bad "for reasons". It's bad "for no reason (other than perhaps their dark skin)" that is out of fashion, and rightly so. That is my preference these days as well. TBH, I thought 5e had that.... It's almost like caster supremacy never had...

We do that with out main games if one player is missing, and cancel for two (unless the one player is the GM of course). We just found we were getting too many calculations before we instituted that. Our Sunday game only has three players (including the GM), so that one gets cancelled if anyone...

Sunday: Grick, duergar, and a roper. ETA: Or: PC lost boot to ooze.

They have a "bonus action" which is not a type of action, because "action" is a whole other thing. No potential for confusion there! Consider the context of my comment. 4e by definition did "go the full 4e route", so 5e as its immediate successor was changing thing from 4e. And it changed...