Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6664206" data-attributes="member: 996">Interesting distinction.&nbsp; Cantrip is distinct from spell, but at-will is not distinct from daily?&nbsp;So, even if the charm, fireball, and summons are available in two different system, they can all be the same in one?&nbsp; &nbsp;My experience is different, yes.&nbsp; 5e is rather the opposite of 4e, it works very well for players who have played AD&amp;D in the past, or tried but not caught onto 3e, or even formed their opinion of D&amp;D from those versions.&nbsp; And, it's ideal for an experienced DM, even when introducing entirely new players (when you can find them).&nbsp; I haven't seen a lot of acceptance from started-with-4e players, yet, but I don't see it as a problem with 5e, just with players who aren't done playing their existing characters yet - the 4e games still going on are all Paragon.&nbsp; Once they've played out through Epic, I expect to be able to get them to try 5e.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Agree with the first bit, disagree with the second.&nbsp; General experience &amp; talent as a DM is essential in any kind of off the cuff ruling, including hand-waving away complexity.&nbsp; Mastery of the system is a lot less significant - indeed, being too deep in the system's group-think rabbit-hole could get in the way of some good-for-the-campaign hand-waving. Conversely, adding complexity to a system is a game-design task, not something you can just do off the cuff, and not something DMing experience necessarily prepares you for.&nbsp;That's like saying sand is stronger than steel because it's already in such small pieces you can't easily break on of them, nor even notice that you have.&nbsp;Different use of the concept, then.&nbsp; There are mechanical options so bad that they're not real options, at most, they're traps. That's the context in which I meant 'chaff.'&nbsp; Not an in-play context, but a system one.&nbsp;Which is a facile, but very limited measure.&nbsp; You could leave a 5e (or most D&amp;D, or even 13A) fighter on 'auto pilot' (Attack the nearest enemy until it's dead, move to the next) pretty easily.&nbsp; You couldn't play most other classes that way without missing out on most of their effectiveness.The fighter is effective in combat, but, even then, not participating at a high level.&nbsp; That's intentional:&nbsp; it's meant to be a simplistic class that requires minimal effort to play effectively.&nbsp; &nbsp;The obvious answer to that is &quot;play another class.&quot;&nbsp; The problem is the fighter is the only class that models a lot of fantasy-genre archetypes.&nbsp; The huge emphasis on magic-using PCs in 5e (33 of 38 sub-classes in the PH), doesn't leave a lot of options for the typical non-magic-wielding hero. &nbsp;Casters are much more interesting, mechanically.&nbsp; Probably whey 5e presents so many caster options.&nbsp;Not unreasonable.&nbsp; The 5e fighter doesn't even represent a foundation on which such a thing could be built, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6664206, member: 996"] Interesting distinction. Cantrip is distinct from spell, but at-will is not distinct from daily? So, even if the charm, fireball, and summons are available in two different system, they can all be the same in one? My experience is different, yes. 5e is rather the opposite of 4e, it works very well for players who have played AD&D in the past, or tried but not caught onto 3e, or even formed their opinion of D&D from those versions. And, it's ideal for an experienced DM, even when introducing entirely new players (when you can find them). I haven't seen a lot of acceptance from started-with-4e players, yet, but I don't see it as a problem with 5e, just with players who aren't done playing their existing characters yet - the 4e games still going on are all Paragon. Once they've played out through Epic, I expect to be able to get them to try 5e. Agree with the first bit, disagree with the second. General experience & talent as a DM is essential in any kind of off the cuff ruling, including hand-waving away complexity. Mastery of the system is a lot less significant - indeed, being too deep in the system's group-think rabbit-hole could get in the way of some good-for-the-campaign hand-waving. Conversely, adding complexity to a system is a game-design task, not something you can just do off the cuff, and not something DMing experience necessarily prepares you for. That's like saying sand is stronger than steel because it's already in such small pieces you can't easily break on of them, nor even notice that you have. Different use of the concept, then. There are mechanical options so bad that they're not real options, at most, they're traps. That's the context in which I meant 'chaff.' Not an in-play context, but a system one. Which is a facile, but very limited measure. You could leave a 5e (or most D&D, or even 13A) fighter on 'auto pilot' (Attack the nearest enemy until it's dead, move to the next) pretty easily. You couldn't play most other classes that way without missing out on most of their effectiveness. The fighter is effective in combat, but, even then, not participating at a high level. That's intentional: it's meant to be a simplistic class that requires minimal effort to play effectively. The obvious answer to that is "play another class." The problem is the fighter is the only class that models a lot of fantasy-genre archetypes. The huge emphasis on magic-using PCs in 5e (33 of 38 sub-classes in the PH), doesn't leave a lot of options for the typical non-magic-wielding hero. Casters are much more interesting, mechanically. Probably whey 5e presents so many caster options. Not unreasonable. The 5e fighter doesn't even represent a foundation on which such a thing could be built, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification