Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="schnee" data-source="post: 7357349" data-attributes="member: 16728">This is an extension of the OD&amp;D argument that the Thief ruined the game. Now, picking locks and climbing walls and sneaking were the purview of a single class, and others - that formerly were able to do those things just fine - were now told they couldn't.It's a natural progression that's inevitable. Just look at laws. Every time a law is made, there's a group that says 'oh, finally, that egregious oversight is closed', and another says 'that was completely unnecessary, and yet another blow against sanity and liberty'. OD&amp;D was barely more than telling campfire stories. 3E was about massive amounts of fine-grained crunch. 5E is trying to thread the needle in between, and it's using customer feedback loops unlike any other edition to do it. Mearls has specifically said (on a DM roundtable with Mercer, Colville, and Lumpkin) that they aimed for accessibility to new players. That's why so much of the older game is embedded in there as 'optional'. I would bet Feats are specifically there because of the expectations of 3e players, but re-done in a 5E way. Much less necessary, much less complicated, very few restrictions on who can take them, no long 'feat trees'. Taking just one can be a character-defining act. For myself, no, they don't ruin the game, but what we do take them as is guidance on what can be possible without a feat. So, Mage Slayer is the only way a character can interrupt spellcasting outside of Counterspell. Can a character otherwise do things to interfere with spellcasting? Sure, they can try, but those things are not automatic, IMO they'd have to be clever and fun about it, and the attempt would take their full action. Is that a house rule? Sure, but that's what 5E is about!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="schnee, post: 7357349, member: 16728"] This is an extension of the OD&D argument that the Thief ruined the game. Now, picking locks and climbing walls and sneaking were the purview of a single class, and others - that formerly were able to do those things just fine - were now told they couldn't. It's a natural progression that's inevitable. Just look at laws. Every time a law is made, there's a group that says 'oh, finally, that egregious oversight is closed', and another says 'that was completely unnecessary, and yet another blow against sanity and liberty'. OD&D was barely more than telling campfire stories. 3E was about massive amounts of fine-grained crunch. 5E is trying to thread the needle in between, and it's using customer feedback loops unlike any other edition to do it. Mearls has specifically said (on a DM roundtable with Mercer, Colville, and Lumpkin) that they aimed for accessibility to new players. That's why so much of the older game is embedded in there as 'optional'. I would bet Feats are specifically there because of the expectations of 3e players, but re-done in a 5E way. Much less necessary, much less complicated, very few restrictions on who can take them, no long 'feat trees'. Taking just one can be a character-defining act. For myself, no, they don't ruin the game, but what we do take them as is guidance on what can be possible without a feat. So, Mage Slayer is the only way a character can interrupt spellcasting outside of Counterspell. Can a character otherwise do things to interfere with spellcasting? Sure, they can try, but those things are not automatic, IMO they'd have to be clever and fun about it, and the attempt would take their full action. Is that a house rule? Sure, but that's what 5E is about! [/QUOTE]

Verification