Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 7399321" data-attributes="member: 6779310">You come across as one who hasn't actually run 5E. It's considerably simpler than PF or 4E mechanically, especially in play, as modifiers are rare, almost entirely replaced by advantage/disadvantage. Every skill is boolean. Those two factors alone are a HUGE simplification of the mechanics. Simplifying everything to either attack rolls or ability checks, and those differing only in how Nat 1 and Nat 20 are handled.5E, compared to PF1, is simpler; 5E compared to any edition of D&amp;D prior is also largely simpler; this excepts the basic sets (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, Denning), but those were ne'er intended to be editions of their own. (Holmes was supposed to be the basic for AD&amp;D, but ... Gygax.) Just by making all the rolls go the same direction as good was a simplification.4E rivals 5E for simplicity, but loses out with the numeric modifiers and treasure packages.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aramis erak, post: 7399321, member: 6779310"] You come across as one who hasn't actually run 5E. It's considerably simpler than PF or 4E mechanically, especially in play, as modifiers are rare, almost entirely replaced by advantage/disadvantage. Every skill is boolean. Those two factors alone are a HUGE simplification of the mechanics. Simplifying everything to either attack rolls or ability checks, and those differing only in how Nat 1 and Nat 20 are handled. 5E, compared to PF1, is simpler; 5E compared to any edition of D&D prior is also largely simpler; this excepts the basic sets (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, Denning), but those were ne'er intended to be editions of their own. (Holmes was supposed to be the basic for AD&D, but ... Gygax.) Just by making all the rolls go the same direction as good was a simplification. 4E rivals 5E for simplicity, but loses out with the numeric modifiers and treasure packages. [/QUOTE]

Verification