Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Eric V" data-source="post: 6574631" data-attributes="member: 6779717">That's a similar experience with my own.&nbsp; I also agree that some aspects of the game went retro were not great (specifically the items you mention; it always made more sense to me that whomever is doing the action rolls the d20), and while the DMG is gorgeous and has interesting to read sections...it's not terribly deep. :/&nbsp; I am one of those people that feels WotC didn't really deliver on the promise of modularity:&nbsp; yes there are modules there, but they are mostly facile, lacking detail, and unhelpful (E.g.&nbsp; Thanks for telling me I can make a short rest 5 minutes in my own game.&nbsp; What I needed was for you to use your expertise to tell me what other aspects of the game may need to be tweaked as a result of this decision.)What 5e did for our group was bring into focus the things we like about the game in terms of playing vs. what we like about the game conceptually.&nbsp; Conceptually, I prefer 4e in almost every way, but playing 5e has been a better experience so far; we'll see when we get to 'paragon' levels.&nbsp; The combat system is simpler, sometimes too much so, but it turns out we prefer that to the extra detail that didn't always add extra pleasure that was present in 4e.(If any of you play miniature games, I liken it to the difference between Heroclix and Heroscape).We didn't think monster write-ups in 4e were anything special, but now, after the 5e MM, we do.&nbsp; We didn't think the lack of lore in the 4e MM was a big deal, but now, after the 5e MM, we very much notice its absence.And so on, and so forth.&nbsp; Probably only a 'greatest hits album' edition like 5e could have clarified things for us this way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Eric V, post: 6574631, member: 6779717"] That's a similar experience with my own. I also agree that some aspects of the game went retro were not great (specifically the items you mention; it always made more sense to me that whomever is doing the action rolls the d20), and while the DMG is gorgeous and has interesting to read sections...it's not terribly deep. :/ I am one of those people that feels WotC didn't really deliver on the promise of modularity: yes there are modules there, but they are mostly facile, lacking detail, and unhelpful (E.g. Thanks for telling me I can make a short rest 5 minutes [I]in my own game[/I]. What I needed was for you to use your expertise to tell me what other aspects of the game may need to be tweaked as a result of this decision.) What 5e did for our group was bring into focus the things we like about the game in terms of playing vs. what we like about the game conceptually. Conceptually, I prefer 4e in almost every way, but playing 5e has been a better experience so far; we'll see when we get to 'paragon' levels. The combat system is simpler, sometimes too much so, but it turns out we prefer that to the extra detail that didn't always add extra pleasure that was present in 4e. (If any of you play miniature games, I liken it to the difference between Heroclix and Heroscape). We didn't think monster write-ups in 4e were anything special, but now, after the 5e MM, we do. We didn't think the lack of lore in the 4e MM was a big deal, but now, after the 5e MM, we very much notice its absence. And so on, and so forth. Probably only a 'greatest hits album' edition like 5e could have clarified things for us this way. [/QUOTE]

Verification