Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 6947036" data-attributes="member: 6799660">I can understand Captain Zap feeling that 5e is a second attempt at making 3e. As a die-hard BECMI fan (played BECMI 83-89, never touching 1e, and then again when we got sick of 2e and later 3e), I can say that 5e feels to me like an alternate RC, or another attempt at B/X/ECMI (never distinguished between B/X and BECMI much until people on the internet did). I feel it takes all the things that the designers who made 3e had on their list of &quot;things people really want fixed about AD&amp;D 2e&quot; (Racial level limits that don't do their intended function, nonsensical racial class restrictions, rewarding high dice roll with strictly better optional classes, multiple incompatible skill systems, name-level distinction after which you are supposed to settle down and become rulers but almost no one ever does) and applies them to BECM. Sure it includes some legacy stuff from AD&amp;D and 3e&nbsp; like sorcerers and tieflings, and feats, and from 4e like dragonborn and short rest recoveries and infinite cantrips, but y'know, that's just fiddling around the edges (you wouldn't call adding gnomes or rangers to a BECMI game to make it clearly AD&amp;D, so none of this does either). That's deliberately biased because Tony asked for that viewpoint. As a 3e player, I can also look at 5e and say &quot;boy, the character creation mini-game is toned down a lot, but it's clearly still there. This is definitely 3e's baby&quot; and it really only depends on what you define as 'iconic' to 3e whether that works for you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 6947036, member: 6799660"] I can understand Captain Zap feeling that 5e is a second attempt at making 3e. As a die-hard BECMI fan (played BECMI 83-89, never touching 1e, and then again when we got sick of 2e and later 3e), I can say that 5e feels to me like an alternate RC, or another attempt at B/X/ECMI (never distinguished between B/X and BECMI much until people on the internet did). I feel it takes all the things that the designers who made 3e had on their list of "things people really want fixed about AD&D 2e" (Racial level limits that don't do their intended function, nonsensical racial class restrictions, rewarding high dice roll with strictly better optional classes, multiple incompatible skill systems, name-level distinction after which you are supposed to settle down and become rulers but almost no one ever does) and applies them to BECM. Sure it includes some legacy stuff from AD&D and 3e like sorcerers and tieflings, and feats, and from 4e like dragonborn and short rest recoveries and infinite cantrips, but y'know, that's just fiddling around the edges (you wouldn't call adding gnomes or rangers to a BECMI game to make it clearly AD&D, so none of this does either). That's deliberately biased because Tony asked for that viewpoint. As a 3e player, I can also look at 5e and say "boy, the character creation mini-game is toned down a lot, but it's clearly still there. This is definitely 3e's baby" and it really only depends on what you define as 'iconic' to 3e whether that works for you. [/QUOTE]

Verification