Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9579950" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I absolutely do not agree with point 1. I disagree significantly with point 2--it is not entirely absent. It's just that they've tried to pretend that it's irrelevant when it isn't.The skill points are not alike, yes. But actually using the system? Far more like 3e than any other system--including 4e, the one that the rules actually did get more-or-less copied from. I have no idea why people choose to run 5e's system as if it were 3e. But they do, much to 5e's detriment. Its skill system, especially if they hadn't utterly jettisoned Skill Challenges, could've actually been good.5e advancement is almost entirely around combat as well. It has nothing remotely like the non-combat sources of XP that were present in 1e/2e or 4e. It's entirely up to the DM to decide whether, when, and even how non-combat XP can be acquired. The 5.0 DMG literally has the most useless non-advice ever on that particular topic, something I've hammered it on repeatedly.Aesthetics are completely irrelevant. Every edition has had distinct aesthetics, often to dramatic degrees. Two "editions" (if you consider PF an iteration on 3e) that have massively similar aesthetics and yet still are radically different are 4e and PF1e--because both of them heavily and prominently featured the same artist, Wayne Reynolds.</blockquote>