Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6791013" data-attributes="member: 6790260">...was the bolded bit really necessary? Couldn't we have avoided saying that another edition was &quot;bad&quot; and made up solely of &quot;clone[d]&quot; abilities?Though I do agree that, as much as people talk up the balance of 5e, there are a pretty decent number of places where the warts aren't hard to find. They definitely clamped down on some of the bigger, more obvious flaws of 3e, but I feel that people give 5e an unfairly large amount of slack for this stuff. In part because &quot;You're the DM! You fix it!&quot; is the universal 5e reply to requests for advice or help. (It's not the only reply, but you won't see a thread that doesn't get it at least once--and often multiple times, even on the first page.)I know I've seen those statements made by 4e's designers, but I haven't (as far as I remember) seen them about 5e. In fact, I had thought they were specifically NOT going for that. That's why there's 3-5 &quot;apprentice&quot; levels, and then the top 5 levels or so are expected to be a whole other kind of play. (Hence why most modules stop at 15, IIRC.) 4e wanted the general experience to be uniform, and simply more...punctuated as you got into higher tiers (e.g. &quot;Once per day, when you die...&quot; ED features). 5e's tiers seem to be more about changing the &quot;kind&quot; of experience you have, not the &quot;degree&quot; of it.Edit: Or, as the satirical tongue-in-cheek part of my brain just thought, &quot;Tiers: another thing that 4e and 5e do in completely different ways.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6791013, member: 6790260"] ...was the bolded bit really necessary? Couldn't we have avoided saying that another edition was "bad" and made up solely of "clone[d]" abilities? Though I do agree that, as much as people talk up the balance of 5e, there are a pretty decent number of places where the warts aren't hard to find. They definitely clamped down on some of the bigger, more obvious flaws of 3e, but I feel that people give 5e an unfairly large amount of slack for this stuff. In part because "You're the DM! You fix it!" is the universal 5e reply to requests for advice or help. (It's not the [I]only[/I] reply, but you won't see a thread that doesn't get it at least once--and often multiple times, even on the first page.) I know I've seen those statements made by 4e's designers, but I haven't (as far as I remember) seen them about 5e. In fact, I had thought they were specifically NOT going for that. That's why there's 3-5 "apprentice" levels, and then the top 5 levels or so are expected to be a whole other kind of play. (Hence why most modules stop at 15, IIRC.) 4e wanted the general experience to be uniform, and simply more...[I]punctuated[/I] as you got into higher tiers (e.g. "Once per day, when you die..." ED features). 5e's tiers seem to be more about changing the "kind" of experience you have, not the "degree" of it. Edit: Or, as the satirical tongue-in-cheek part of my brain just thought, "Tiers: another thing that 4e and 5e do in [I]completely different ways.[/I]" [/QUOTE]

Verification