NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kannik" data-source="post: 9212352" data-attributes="member: 984">I very much enjoy 4e, and when 5e came out our groups moved on to it.  It's fine and we enjoy it, even if there was deleterious regression in some of the design elements as well as less overall flavour to the character classes and abilities. If I were to rank what editions I would like to play in (and only listing those I have extensively played in) today, I would place it as 4e, then 5e, then 1e/2e, with 3e/3.5e last.  Nicely, we just started a 4e campaign in one of my groups, and it's been delightful to return to it. That said, there are some elements/ideas in 5e that I think are an improvement and would port into a revised 4e, such as finesse weapons (sidestepping some of the BMA issues) and some of the subclass variants. For me, the AEDU structure from PHB1-3 was not a show-stopper nor stifling.  That said, I equally like the variations that began in the Essentials line, so variety is cool and it would be neat to push that design space even further.  Class roles (primary and secondary) were cool too.  I certainly wouldn't jettison SCs, they offer great potential and they always rocked for me (which might be because I didn't read the rules ran them based on a description of play from before the game was released; the post was from WotC though I don't remember who was running the game in the example).  I didn't find the game overly gameist (especially given that Gary himself calls 1e designed from a gameist perspective!) in the least, and I think the effects-based design + improvisation rules were a great boon which allowed for easy 'fluffing' to make all sorts of RP possible. As noted upthread, I'd've loved to have a series of modules to facilitate a greater variety of campaign styles...</blockquote>

Verification