Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 7665494" data-attributes="member: 6680772">I'm not quite keeping up with the thread velocity, but wanted to respond to this.I like it, personally.  While structured slightly different (class based vs weapon based or universal standard) it is essentially the same as in 4e and 5e respectively.It's a "devil's in the details" kinda thing, IMO.  I think that on the ground, there's a HUGE difference.  If I'm coming from my friends game where I get Inspiration for giving him the giggles and I play in your game where Inspiration is based on creating complications, that's a huge adjustment to make.  But in the aggregate, the style of play is roughly the same: Inspiration distributed as a metagame resource based on a standard decided by the DM/Group.  It would, after all, be a similar big adjustment were I to go to a game where the DM gives Inspiration for giving good role-play "in character".If we're talking LotR movies, I agree.  Party vs. Goblins and Cave Troll.  Party vs. Uruks and Lurtz.  Party vs Many, Many Uruks and Many Lurtz-level captains.  Party vs. Orcs and Witch-King.  Party vs. Orcs, Trolls, and Sauron.For me this is one of those through-lines from 4e.  4e introduced the concept of Solo monster, often accompanied by lieutenants and minions.  5e foregrounds that approach with the Legendary distinction and Lair actions.I apologize for missing that when you first post it, as it answers my question very well!  And I think I would have 100% agreed with you.  In fact, I think it is indeed likely that they had some research that suggested that.  But then, I'm of the opinion that even when I can't bring myself to personally like some of WotC's past decisions, I find it hard to fault them for making those decisions.  There is a part of me, in my heart of hearts (perhaps not entirely rational!), that looks at 3e as a complete and utter betrayal.  And to be honest, even if it had been 5e that came out at that time, would have felt the same.  (One might say there's a part of me that's VERY attached to descending AC and AD&D's classic Saving Throws.)  But I try to look at it from their point of view, their decisions make sense.  Even when I don't personally like it, even when those decisions look, in hindsight, to be wrong, I can see how why WotC might go the way they did.I too, find some of the rhetoric as taking things too personally -- "turn their backs on", or "fired the fanbase", or even as I wrote above, "complete and utter betrayal."  Those might be perfectly understandable personal reactions, but not indicative of sober assessment.OTOH, I don't find "breaking with tradition" necessarily in the same vein.  "Turn their back on tradition", yes, definitely.  But breaking with tradition is something every edition does to some extent -- and that extent is the question.  IMO (but perhaps not yours, and I respect that), it is no more normative to say 4e broke with tradition -- possibly too far for at least a significant minority -- than it would be to say that 4e pushed the envelope too far, with pushing the envelope being just the phrase the 4e designers used for their process.  I don't think it can be denied that 4e tried to innovate.  Innovation is a double-edged sword -- sometimes it works, sometimes it comes back to bite you.  Where I agree with Mercurius is 4e's innovation was not palatable for some people in a non-specific, additive, emotional way.  While technically the blame for that falls on the innovator (WotC), I do not view that as doing wrong, anymore than Gary Gygax did wrong by not presenting D&D in a way that appealed to Ken St. Andre.Agreed.Also agreed.</blockquote>

Verification