Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9453072" data-attributes="member: 87792">And mine is that it's still overwhelmingly focussed on combat.For that matter I could easily argue that it's proportionally the most combat focussed D&amp;D of the 21st Century.Compared to 3.X I would say that it is mechanically actually more combat focussed. The combat is lighter - but it's also flushed the non-combat modifiers and the oodles of feats so the non-combat mechanics in 5e are paper thin. (This doesn't mean I think 3.X was better out of combat; I don't think the 3.X rules helped but they were there and had significant focus. I think 4e halving the number of skills and dumping skill points in favour of trained and untrained (and 5e keeping both) was a good move but both reduced the out of combat focus)Compared to 4e I could also argue that 5e is mechanically again proportionally about as combat heavy. 5e again lacks the modifiers of 4e in combat and out but has a broadly similar - and lacks out of combat structures like skill challenges and the more interesting 4e versions of rituals. Also a lot of the non-4e spells aren't for engaging with out of combat abilities so much as bypassing them. I am not kidding when I say that I find that 4e's out of combat experience is easily the best of any D&amp;D.To me 5e has advantages of accessibility (it's easily the least arcane and easiest to pick up D&amp;D; oddly I consider 4e the least accessible), the sharp edges being filed off making it the compromise edition, Critical Role, and COVID having come at the right time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 9453072, member: 87792"] And mine is that it's still overwhelmingly focussed on combat. For that matter I could easily argue that it's proportionally the [I]most[/I] combat focussed D&D of the 21st Century. Compared to 3.X I would say that it is mechanically actually more combat focussed. The combat is lighter - but it's also flushed the non-combat modifiers and the oodles of feats so the non-combat mechanics in 5e are paper thin. (This doesn't mean I think 3.X was better out of combat; I don't think the 3.X rules helped but they were there and had significant focus. I think 4e halving the number of skills and dumping skill points in favour of trained and untrained (and 5e keeping both) was a good move but both reduced the out of combat focus) Compared to 4e I could also argue that 5e is mechanically again proportionally about as combat heavy. 5e again lacks the modifiers of 4e in combat and out but has a broadly similar - and lacks out of combat structures like skill challenges and the more interesting 4e versions of rituals. Also a lot of the non-4e spells aren't for engaging with out of combat abilities so much as bypassing them. I am not kidding when I say that I find that 4e's out of combat experience is easily the best of any D&D. To me 5e has advantages of accessibility (it's easily the least arcane and easiest to pick up D&D; oddly I consider 4e the least accessible), the sharp edges being filed off making it the compromise edition, Critical Role, and COVID having come at the right time. [/QUOTE]

Verification