Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7229666" data-attributes="member: 996">It's profoundly ill-suited for it, since the foundation of 4e was comparatively balanced class designs, and 5e pendulum-swung away from that pretty dramatically.&nbsp; 5e is ideal for, and naturally lends itself to being run from, a classic perspective (for me that's 1e AD&amp;D, but I hear favorable comparisons to 2e all the time, as well).&nbsp; 5e-as-3e requires flipping a few switches on - feats, MCing - but is only a veneer, the kind of depth of character-creation freedom, rewards for system mastery, and solid underpinning of 'RAW' just isn't there - I think that's why we get certain complaints about 5e being too easy or 'lacking' certain specifics, like item complaints, because the 3e-style experience requires some solidity in those areas that 5e leaves to the DM.That said, I have seen DMs successfully lift whole chunks of 4e (or 3e) into 5e just by ruling in accord with the earlier edition.&nbsp; 5e players often hardly notice.&nbsp; In 5e, the rules constantly require rulings, if a DM very familiar with a prior edition just rules as he would have run it (RAW or otherwise) in that edition...&nbsp;Yep, that'd all work fine, I'm sure.&nbsp; It's not going to end up feeling much like 4e, on the player side of the screen, because of all the missing and/or imbalanced classes &amp;c, but if, like you, they're familiar with details of play that you adopt as rulings, it should be comfortable enough for them as a process.&nbsp; &nbsp;No.&nbsp; 3e-style PrCs would probably be the most-nearly-compatible thing along those lines you might add to 5e, since it can use 3e-style MCing.&nbsp;That I could see.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7229666, member: 996"] It's profoundly ill-suited for it, since the foundation of 4e was comparatively balanced class designs, and 5e pendulum-swung away from that pretty dramatically. 5e is ideal for, and naturally lends itself to being run from, a classic perspective (for me that's 1e AD&D, but I hear favorable comparisons to 2e all the time, as well). 5e-as-3e requires flipping a few switches on - feats, MCing - but is only a veneer, the kind of depth of character-creation freedom, rewards for system mastery, and solid underpinning of 'RAW' just isn't there - I think that's why we get certain complaints about 5e being too easy or 'lacking' certain specifics, like item complaints, because the 3e-style experience requires some solidity in those areas that 5e leaves to the DM. That said, I have seen DMs successfully lift whole chunks of 4e (or 3e) into 5e just by ruling in accord with the earlier edition. 5e players often hardly notice. In 5e, the rules constantly require rulings, if a DM very familiar with a prior edition just rules as he would have run it (RAW or otherwise) in that edition... Yep, that'd all work fine, I'm sure. It's not going to end up feeling much like 4e, on the player side of the screen, because of all the missing and/or imbalanced classes &c, but if, like you, they're familiar with details of play that you adopt as rulings, it should be comfortable enough for them as a process. No. 3e-style PrCs would probably be the most-nearly-compatible thing along those lines you might add to 5e, since it can use 3e-style MCing. That I could see. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification