Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7048536" data-attributes="member: 996">Sure, but those of them that were D&amp;D, 5e has some 'obligation' (vague non-binding marketing-speak promise, if we're being cynical, which I've been trying not to be, but, it's my nature) to call back and to support the styles of fans thereof.&nbsp; &nbsp;Every edition of D&amp;D has been class-based.&nbsp; And you could advance in 2-3 classes simultaneously, in the classic game, not just 'switch careers.'&nbsp; The two used two different systems, while 3e allowed both (and more), with one, arguably-simpler one.&nbsp; &nbsp;You're very welcome.&nbsp; Relatively recent insight, really, though considering it's been out over two years.&nbsp;Tip of the iceberg:&nbsp; each edition had its own fans who wanted to do the fun stuff they could do with that edition, so 5e really needed to cover as much of that fun stuff as possible, even from the beginning.&nbsp; It did surprisingly well, but still has some to back-fill.&nbsp;Great, yes, that's the flip side of being 'Empowered.'&nbsp; Unnecessary, no, because it lets the game get away with being more things to more people, without being the wrong thing to any of the ones that take up that great responsibility of DMing.The DM is prettymuch the foundation this edition is built upon - and the guy fixing its roof.&nbsp; &nbsp;Then maybe there's an issue with what the DM wants, or with the opinion that a good DM doesn't say 'No.'&nbsp; I'm OK with the first-say-yes style, mostly, but in 5e, y'gotta say 'No,' (and a lotta other things, too), sometimes.&nbsp; Because you have too much of the power to cede a lot of it just to avoid an uncomfortable situation.&nbsp;Essentially, saying 'no' without having to actually say it.&nbsp; Which is, well, I'll try to find a nice way to say it......nope, sorry can't find one.&nbsp; I'll go with:&nbsp; Worse than just saying 'no.'&nbsp;Ironically, I jumped ship to Hero System (wildly complex!) and Storyteller (splatterriffic) when 2e exceeded my tolerance for bloat.&nbsp;Unavoidable, but all the more reason to have more official options so people aren't tempted to push the crazy stuff on you.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&quot;Can I use the DMsG 'Oriental Abominations' Supreme Samurai Class, the one who can kill everything within six miles in one action with Supreme Cleave?&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Er, no*, use the official Samurai class from Volo's Guide to Kara-Tur, instead, we're all-official at this table.&quot;* yeah, had to say no, sorry.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />&nbsp;Not the bolded bits, no.&nbsp; Nothing modular about it, it's an archetype, not a class, and (though 'casters' is ambiguous since wizards and sorcerers pick their spells differently, for instance) it doesn't pick maneuvers every level from a long list divided into 9 dramatically scaling levels of power.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7048536, member: 996"] Sure, but those of them that were D&D, 5e has some 'obligation' (vague non-binding marketing-speak promise, if we're being cynical, which I've been trying not to be, but, it's my nature) to call back and to support the styles of fans thereof. Every edition of D&D has been class-based. And you could advance in 2-3 classes simultaneously, in the classic game, not just 'switch careers.' The two used two different systems, while 3e allowed both (and more), with one, arguably-simpler one. You're very welcome. Relatively recent insight, really, though considering it's been out over two years. Tip of the iceberg: each edition had its own fans who wanted to do the fun stuff they could do with that edition, so 5e really needed to cover as much of that fun stuff as possible, even from the beginning. It did surprisingly well, but still has some to back-fill. Great, yes, that's the flip side of being 'Empowered.' Unnecessary, no, because it lets the game get away with being more things to more people, without being the wrong thing to any of the ones that take up that great responsibility of DMing. The DM is prettymuch the foundation this edition is built upon - and the guy fixing its roof. Then maybe there's an issue with what the DM wants, or with the opinion that a good DM doesn't say 'No.' I'm OK with the first-say-yes style, mostly, but in 5e, y'gotta say 'No,' (and a lotta other things, too), sometimes. Because you have too much of the power to cede a lot of it just to avoid an uncomfortable situation. Essentially, saying 'no' without having to actually say it. Which is, well, I'll try to find a nice way to say it... ...nope, sorry can't find one. I'll go with: Worse than just saying 'no.' Ironically, I jumped ship to Hero System (wildly complex!) and Storyteller (splatterriffic) when 2e exceeded my tolerance for bloat. Unavoidable, but all the more reason to have more official options so people aren't tempted to push the crazy stuff on you. ;) "Can I use the DMsG 'Oriental Abominations' Supreme Samurai Class, the one who can kill everything within six miles in one action with Supreme Cleave?" "Er, no*, use the official Samurai class from Volo's Guide to Kara-Tur, instead, we're all-official at this table." * yeah, had to say no, sorry. :( Not the bolded bits, no. Nothing modular about it, it's an archetype, not a class, and (though 'casters' is ambiguous since wizards and sorcerers pick their spells differently, for instance) it doesn't pick maneuvers every level from a long list divided into 9 dramatically scaling levels of power. [/QUOTE]

Verification