NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Composer99" data-source="post: 8968407" data-attributes="member: 7030042">I dunno, out of all of those complaints about 5e the only thing I concur is a genuine flaw in the implementation as such is how 5e handles non-proficient saving throws; to my mind, it causes it to be both out of line with every other single edition of D&D, when you take 4e's "NADs" into account and to fail to uphold the fantasy of "heroic characters being heroic".Everything else is just a matter of (a) a specific, correctable flaw in implementation (monster design (†)), (b) just a difference in design philosophy that you can like or not like (skills), and (c) DMs making DM choices that you might or might not agree with (magic items; this last could have been nominally addressed with better guidance in the DMG about roughly how many magic items a PC should be expected to have at different tiers of play assuming the "heroic fantasy" default, although I say nominally since it might come for naught with at least some DMs who are inclined to stinginess).(†) How many hit points a monster has isn't a problem, as such; it's whether or not it's interesting to fight against. Obviously, having scads of hit points is a problem if your monster design is uninspired, but that's because of uninspired design, not hit points.[HR][/HR]At any rate, since this thread has to do with redoing 4e, suffice to say that 4e has a different design philosophy and is meant to uphold a different feel in gameplay than 5e. With those in mind, I'm of the mind that 5e-style numerical bounding would be unsuitable for a 4e redo. Not to say finding ways to cut down on numbers would be entirely inappropriate, but I wouldn't recommend working from a 5e chassis.</blockquote>

Verification