D&D General Chris Perkins and Stan! - previous D&D edition thoughts

[occam]

Iterative attacks are still in 5e. Like, they can even start at 2nd level for some classes, and are much more of a pain to remember (is it a bonus action or not? Can I use this bonus action for this or this?) than even 3e was!

Multiple attacks is not the same as 3e's iterative attacks. Aside from the time-wasting low BAB on successive attacks, the main problem was the Full Attack requirement to use the iterative attacks, which locked down movement and turned combat into a boring slog. Note that neither 5e (nor 4e) requires a combatant to plant themselves in one spot in order to make multiple attacks.

Not as many skill points, but they sure operate differently than in 2e...more like...oh yeah...that's right...3e and 4e.

Nitpicky skill points are not the same as selecting trained/proficient skills in 4e/5e.

Still there, and now even mandatory in 5.5!

Godawful feat proliferation is not the same as having feats. Count up how many feats were published for 3e (or 4e!) and compare that to 5e.

And once again, still exists in 5e.

No, LFQW does not exist in 5e as it does in 3e's problematic implementation.

You seem to be making an effort to entirely miss the point of what people are saying in this thread.

 

[Staffan]

Iterative attacks are still in 5e. Like, they can even start at 2nd level for some classes, and are much more of a pain to remember (is it a bonus action or not? Can I use this bonus action for this or this?) than even 3e was!

Those are extra attacks. Iterative attacks usually refers to how 3e made multiple attacks a function of your base attack bonus: when you got BAB +6, you got a second attack at -5, and at +11 a third at -10, and finally at +16 a fourth at -15.

 

[Chaltab]

Those are extra attacks. Iterative attacks usually refers to how 3e made multiple attacks a function of your base attack bonus: when you got BAB +6, you got a second attack at -5, and at +11 a third at -10, and finally at +16 a fourth at -15.

P2E carrying that over as the Multi-Attack Penalty is one of those things where I just stare at them like a deer in the headlights waiting for the car to hit.

 

[Zardnaar]

P2E carrying that over as the Multi-Attack Penalty is one of those things where I just stare at them like a deer in the headlights waiting for the car to hit.

Yeah even AD&D didn't do that.

 

[MerricB]

Yeah even AD&D didn't do that.

The one time it sort of does it is two-weapon fighting.

I wonder how many people used that option?

Cheers!

 

[Sacrosanct]

The one time it sort of does it is two-weapon fighting.

I wonder how many people used that option?

Cheers!

We did, but didn't like it. But understood why it was a rule to incentivize shields otherwise everyone and their grandma's dog would have two-weapon fighting.

 

[PHATsakk43]

5E if it really needs to be compared to another edition is actually rather difficult. Only because I think you have to use two to nail it.

5E is what B/X & BECMI were to AD&D to 3/3.5. It is basically a stripped-down version of 3E, specifically to keep the BECMI to 2E reference, with the skill system "tech tree" mentality removed like how BECMI didn't use NWPs.

Otherwise, mechanically, 5E and 3E are basically the same game.

I think the memories of 2E nostalgia feels the closest to 5E, but it is a far different game.

That said, 5.5 feels like 2E compared with 5's 1E. They are compatible games, but 5.5 PCs are just going to be even more powerful in a 5E module.

 

[Zardnaar]

The one time it sort of does it is two-weapon fighting.

I wonder how many people used that option?

Cheers!

We used the 2E version where you could offset it.

 

[Staffan]

P2E carrying that over as the Multi-Attack Penalty is one of those things where I just stare at them like a deer in the headlights waiting for the car to hit.

I can see why, though. If you didn't get diminishing returns on your attacks, the most efficient way to spend your three actions would almost always be Strike, Strike, Strike (assuming you're in range). So it serves a somewhat different purpose in PF2 than it does in 3.x.

 

[Chaltab]

I can see why, though. If you didn't get diminishing returns on your attacks, the most efficient way to spend your three actions would almost always be Strike, Strike, Strike (assuming you're in range). So it serves a somewhat different purpose in PF2 than it does in 3.x.

I admit I've never played P2E but it just seems like more trouble than it's worth. I read through the Fighter feats and what strikes me is how nearly every one of them has specific rules about how it interacts with the multiattack penalty. It feels like a nightmare to keep track of and it's one of the reasons I've no interest in actually playing the system. At least not with a martial class, maybe as a caster if I otherwise really clicked with the group and campaign pitch.