Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6784396" data-attributes="member: 996">Not nearly everything, no, but the basics, 'in some form,' sure.  That's still far short.  You can certainly play a veteran-soldier with a pole-arm, for instance, but you won't be having the impact of a 3.x/PF 'battlefield control' build.  Between backgrounds and re-skinning you can probably model almost any concept, the result just might not be that viable or that interesting in actual play.  A lot of build options, and more choice in-play than 5e martial characters, but vastly less flexibility than 5e neo-Vancian casters. You could optimize a striker for damage, that way, using multi-attack and minor-action-attack encounter powers and generate a lot of damage in the first round or two of combat.  A party full of such characters made for very short combats - most of the time, perhaps punctuated by the occasional disaster when something didn't fit their formula.  The result was faster - and, perhaps, less interesting - combats.  Much like 5e has delivered.Heh.5e and classic both give the DM a lot of latitude in how deadly to make his game.  Heck, the idea that, maybe, you shouldn't actively try to wipe out the party every session wasn't even exactly universal back then. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />But, just, by the numbers.  Dying at -10 vs at -hps is deadlier if you have fewer than 10 hps.  FWIW.Yep, classic D&D prettymuch lacked any sort of 'balanced-encounter' guidelines, so you could easily have had a newish DM overstocking his dungeons.  I don't know why discussions of AD&D or classic D&D always shift to 2e.  You also didn't die that often at high level.  We were talking about a character that needed to roll a 1 to fail a save, rolling that one on an SoD without any other recourse (if it was a poison save, FREX, neutralize poison would have worked even after the fact.Revivify was introduced in 3.5, which also did away with system shock & CON loss and the like, when you could find yourself dying a whole lot more often and more suddenly, especially to the ever-rising DCs of save-or-dies.It's not so bad, a life-saving spell.  Maybe a little anachornistically EMT-ish.  That's a whole 'nuther "death spiral."Yep.  Doesn't exactly showcase 5e's best.A system can be more or less vulnerable to that kind of thing.  5e shouldn't be, because of DM Empowerment....A DM runs more creatures than a player, and they're different every time, so it's pretty easy to 'forget' - or intentionally skip over - some of their options.  which does make them less interesting to players.  That works both ways.  5e is very much pointed at the long-time or even nostalgic player, its familiarity is one of its biggest selling points.</blockquote>

Verification