Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7752772" data-attributes="member: 996">Of characters, by the player, yes.  While 5e's is the customizability of the campaign by the DM. Makes it dreadfully hard to say which is difinitively the better game. Yeah, that definitely seems like an artifact not of customization, but of how it was delivered:  in a 'list based' fashion, through an ever-growing selection of supplements & player-facing options, each very specific in fluff/flavor.  If a player reeeeallly wanted a particulare function, effect, combo or whatever on the mechanics side, he might be 'forced' to bring in conflicting or campaign-inappropriate 'flavors'; if he wanted a particular flavor, he had to wait for it to get a mechanical reprentation and hope it meshed with the rest of the build, or create a build around it.  In either case, it dovetailed with the need to have RAW respected in order to play what you wanted, to result in players sometimes wanting to bring in characters that would add to or re-define aspects of the campaign setting, just so they could exist.  It was different from earlier eds only in that, then, it would have been entirely up to the DM to add something different from the usual suspects. 2e kits were a little unfocused.  Some were more like Backgrounds in 4e/5e, just where your character came from before gaining his class, others were more like 4e Themes, who the character was as he continued to adventure, and some more like 5e sub-classes, changing how the class worked or what it represented.  One mechanic trying to do too much, perhaps.</blockquote>

Verification