Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="slobo777" data-source="post: 5949284" data-attributes="member: 6694877">Wow.One player dislikes 5E because it is too like 4E. Evidently 5E has too much of 4E &quot;gamist&quot; play . . .The other player dislikes 5E because it is too like 3E.&nbsp; Evidently 5E goes too far in reversion to 3E.What, exactly, am I seeing here? Edition wars moving to the trenches, with 5E as No Man's Land?AFAICS in terms of edition mix the weighting, if anything, is being set very much in the middle for the playtest. Now, that does include stuff I'm not too keen on (e.g. Vancian spells), but I have to admit those things represent the over-all weight and feel of all versions of D&amp;D. I've pretty much played them all (in over 30 years).So, even though I'm unconvinced by the playtest material, I do think the design team have done a good job finding a workable mix in the core rules between versions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="slobo777, post: 5949284, member: 6694877"] Wow. One player dislikes 5E because it is too like 4E. Evidently 5E has too much of 4E "gamist" play . . . The other player dislikes 5E because it is too like 3E. Evidently 5E goes too far in reversion to 3E. What, exactly, am I seeing here? Edition wars moving to the trenches, with 5E as No Man's Land? AFAICS in terms of edition mix the weighting, if anything, is being set very much in the middle for the playtest. Now, that does include stuff I'm not too keen on (e.g. Vancian spells), but I have to admit those things represent the over-all weight and feel of all versions of D&D. I've pretty much played them all (in over 30 years). So, even though I'm unconvinced by the playtest material, I do think the design team have done a good job finding a workable mix in the core rules between versions. [/QUOTE]

Verification