Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8800595" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I guess what I'd say is, the way most people speak about 5e...The first thing isn't supposed to ever be "yep," because the system is supposed to be more open, more accepting, more flexible than any version before. Admitting that it is a kludge, and more importantly that one is in fact needed to accomplish something, is a pretty major let-down from the system that supposedly touted modularity, flexibility, ease of modification, etc."Perfect" will never happen, so I don't expect that. It's about effective translation. I'm reminded of my Latin courses. Latin has several grammar structures that flat don't exist in English, e.g. the "ablative absolute" ("Militibus conventis, Caesar dixit." = "With the soldiers having been assembled, Caesar spoke.") or the gerundive (verbal adjectives that imply purpose or obligation, e.g. "libros legendos," "the books to-be-read" or "the must-read books.") For such things, meaning-for-meaning translation is necessary, sometimes with poetic license taken to give the experience or imagery when the structure itself is beyond reach. The fact that perfect translation may be impossible does not mean there are not better or worse translations of Latin works to English--and, likewise, translations of 4e's mechanics (or other editions') to 5e."Doable" and more importantly "worthwhile" are where the issues crop up. As stated, needing to wait until level 6 or even level 10, when many groups stop playing at 10th level, is a pretty big ask. Likewise, many of the proposed solutions are at best halfway measures even in a meaning-for-meaning sense, and often are nigh-pointless in a 5e context. That's, again, a pretty big ask, that someone wait six whole levels doing something that doesn't actually look like or work like what they wanted, delaying their own core progress (you aren't getting Cha or Str bonuses out of either proposed feat!), in order to get a weak showing both in purely "performance in 5e" terms and in "does it capture the spirit/meaning of the 4e thing" terms. Can we really call something "doable" if it is so long delayed? Can we really call it "worthwhile" in either the in-context or across-translation context? Both of those seem pretty major issues--particularly in light of the "big tent, modular, easy-to-modify" rhetoric so frequently used in favor of 5e (and, more pointedly, against 4e.)'Cause...I just don't share your confidence on that. The Warlord is even worse, needing dips in Fighter, Rogue, and (as many have argued) also Bard, just to kinda-sorta approximate what Warlords do....with magic, rather than purely by grit, skill, planning, and education/psychology.</blockquote>

Verification