Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 7751312" data-attributes="member: 46713">Actually, that's precisely the feeling that 3e gave me: A big part of this was that monsters and NPCs used the same rules as the PCs. Players suddenly wanted to know how and why a monster was able to do something. Everything was questioned and needed to be 'according to RAW'. In fact, I think, it was during 3e that I first encountered that acronym.In contrast 4e had some highly polished rules and a very transparent design. The math was laid bare and for that reason it was easy to see how changing one aspect of the system would affect other parts. E.g. it didn't take me long to figure out that monsters needed a math fix. Others realized the same about the skill system: The DCs were off. But all in all, 4e was the system that needed the least amount if tinkering, imho. It was probably the first edition of D&amp;D that worked well for me without using any house-rules.By comparison, when we started playing Pathfinder we implemented three house rules right in the first session!I also feel that 4e gave the DM an unprecedented level of freedom in other, less rule-related areas. Tweaking encounter design, healing rates, skill challenges and rate of advancement was very much possible and encouraged. With the release of the Dark Sun campaign setting even more tools became available: backgrounds, inherent bonuses to do away with must-have magic items, skill powers, rituals, etc.It's possible that 5e is even more open in that regard, but I don't know that edition well enough to be sure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jhaelen, post: 7751312, member: 46713"] Actually, that's precisely the feeling that 3e gave me: A big part of this was that monsters and NPCs used the same rules as the PCs. Players suddenly wanted to know how and why a monster was able to do something. Everything was questioned and needed to be 'according to RAW'. In fact, I think, it was during 3e that I first encountered that acronym. In contrast 4e had some highly polished rules and a very transparent design. The math was laid bare and for that reason it was easy to see how changing one aspect of the system would affect other parts. E.g. it didn't take me long to figure out that monsters needed a math fix. Others realized the same about the skill system: The DCs were off. But all in all, 4e was the system that needed the least amount if tinkering, imho. It was probably the first edition of D&D that worked well for me without using any house-rules. By comparison, when we started playing Pathfinder we implemented three house rules right in the first session! I also feel that 4e gave the DM an unprecedented level of freedom in other, less rule-related areas. Tweaking encounter design, healing rates, skill challenges and rate of advancement was very much possible and encouraged. With the release of the Dark Sun campaign setting even more tools became available: backgrounds, inherent bonuses to do away with must-have magic items, skill powers, rituals, etc. It's possible that 5e is even more open in that regard, but I don't know that edition well enough to be sure. [/QUOTE]

Verification