Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8272564" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, I am not sure if you were responding to a post where I was talking about why I would NOT use 5e as the base of my own game, or the one where I was stating that it does do a number of things well. So I agree with at least some of your list, though it is of course somewhat subjective. Battlemaster is not bad, though I still think that the game has room for a 'Warlord' that is a more rounded expression of that. I never thought it was worth wrecking the resource balance of the game to break A/E/D/U. I mean, there are actually ways to work it WITHIN the A/E/D/U structure, like making all the Encounter powers 'power ups' (IE like meta-magic type things). Then you'd do some at-will thing, and apply one of these power ups to it. This was done in Essentials, but in a way that broke the resource framework, poor design. 5e takes a sledgehammer to the resource framework, and the game suffers for it in obvious ways. You like BA, but the weird thing about BA is, it doesn't really HELP, but it can hurt! I mean, no 1st level PC is ever ACTUALLY going to be called upon, as a planned part of an adventure, to attempt a bunch of high DC checks. It just doesn't make sense, unless maybe you're playing some sort of weird one-off where failure is part of the point... So, what does BA actually do, and what makes it 'more practical'? It DOES make it impossible to present "the challenge that absolutely must achieve 20th level to attempt" and makes even mid-to-high-level PCs often feel like schmucks. That's not a terrible thing, it is just a thing that creates a somewhat different type of game. Neither BA nor 4e's more aggressive scaling is 'better', they are just different.Likewise, some things like 'incidental combat', it is all just a matter of what you want to play. I'm not interested in playing out fights that are a foregone conclusion in detail. I mean, it just isn't interesting. I think D&D has just maintained this tradition where every detail must be played out because the paradigm is the puzzle/deathtrap dungeon, and even the smallest move can have totally lethal consequences. The players must be kept in the dark about what they cannot see, and thus every situation is played out mechanically the same way lest some metagame thinking leak in, or someone realize that there must be a trap here because we're playing out this trivial guard fight scene. Even 5e, IMHO, moved on from that long ago, and if you DO play that way, then sure 5e's approach is probably best. Otherwise, either game can elide things, but 4e has a bit easier time with that. Make your consequential encounters more interesting and it all works out fine, right?</blockquote>

Verification