Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I'm *GASP* Actually Going to Be Playing 5e in a Few Weeks -- What are the Character Creation Pitfalls to Avoid?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="happyhermit" data-source="post: 6885683" data-attributes="member: 6834463"><p>Yes, viable is different but more or less equally subjective. If the difference is important to you, then I will state it differently. Making sub-optimal choices was quite possible in 4e, and it could lead to combinations that were much less viable than in 5e.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not a misconception actually, I am well aware of the few static DCs that existed in 4e, but we are talking about the system. As I am sure you are aware, 4e was based around "level appropriate" challenges, specifically encounters. Facing the same task with the same difficulty could happen, but anyone familiar with the system knows that was the exception rather than the rule. Encounters had specific budgets guidelines, minions were there as an alternative to lower level "mooks" (and had appropriately high defenses), skill challenges required progressively higher numbers. Pretending that things didn't scale RAW and RAI is preposterous.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have no idea where the 8 comes from. I am talking about ASIs, and the fact that if you didn't put a good chunk of them in your primary stats your character would progressively become largely ineffective within the 4e encounter and skill check framework.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope, what is silly is that you are making assumptions based on your biases that are absolutely not true. Rather than "based on a preconceived notion" the example that came to mind was from a player that was new to rpgs. Reading the fighter, and noting the fact that they were proficient in the weapon, it was not clear to them that actually using that bow would actually "suck". The only way to know this would be to know that a standard attack from a proficient fighter, actually is <u>relatively</u> weak within the 4e system. Plus, they would have to know that there were not a whole lot of options (or any) at higher levels that would make the bow a viable option. A higher level of system knowledge was required than in 5e and the 4e version was less intuitive and clear. Take your example of STR weapon vs DEX weapon, 5e makes it clear to make the decision about STR and DEX depending on the type of weapons you plan to use, no similarity really. Still, this might make the difference even more obvious to someone who is not trying to ignore it; A 5e fighter that ignores what is clearly laid out in the class description regarding weapon type, and for whatever reason decides to use a weapon that doesn't use his primary stat (or is finesse) is STILL not going to be as nerfed as a similar 4e fighter with a bow. Maybe attacking with their dump stat would make them as bad, relative to the systems, but I am not even sure of that.</p><p></p><p>Then your comparison of expecting a ranger not to cast spells, really? You can't see the difference between a situation wherein reading the class description makes it absolutely clear (a whole subsection on spellcasting) that rangers use magic, and then somehow "expecting them not to" and one where reading the class description tells you that you are proficient with a weapon, and thinking using one might be a "viable" option. A better comparison would be if the 5e description of a ranger made you able to cast spells (proficient), but in actuality it was a terrible idea. Surely you can be objective enough to see the difference.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It was a bigger hit in 4e, not scaling your primary numbers did not go well.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree, that is absurd. </p><p></p><p>On a non-absurd note, non-caster have not been erased, people still want to play them (myself in particular), and I have no idea what "deserving choices" has to do with anything I said.</p><p></p><p>The reality is that the martial/spellcaster dichotomy does not exist and even caster/non-caster is not based on class. There are varying degrees of casting available to all classes and even sub-classes through feats and races.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="happyhermit, post: 6885683, member: 6834463"] Yes, viable is different but more or less equally subjective. If the difference is important to you, then I will state it differently. Making sub-optimal choices was quite possible in 4e, and it could lead to combinations that were much less viable than in 5e. Not a misconception actually, I am well aware of the few static DCs that existed in 4e, but we are talking about the system. As I am sure you are aware, 4e was based around "level appropriate" challenges, specifically encounters. Facing the same task with the same difficulty could happen, but anyone familiar with the system knows that was the exception rather than the rule. Encounters had specific budgets guidelines, minions were there as an alternative to lower level "mooks" (and had appropriately high defenses), skill challenges required progressively higher numbers. Pretending that things didn't scale RAW and RAI is preposterous. I have no idea where the 8 comes from. I am talking about ASIs, and the fact that if you didn't put a good chunk of them in your primary stats your character would progressively become largely ineffective within the 4e encounter and skill check framework. Nope, what is silly is that you are making assumptions based on your biases that are absolutely not true. Rather than "based on a preconceived notion" the example that came to mind was from a player that was new to rpgs. Reading the fighter, and noting the fact that they were proficient in the weapon, it was not clear to them that actually using that bow would actually "suck". The only way to know this would be to know that a standard attack from a proficient fighter, actually is [U]relatively[/U] weak within the 4e system. Plus, they would have to know that there were not a whole lot of options (or any) at higher levels that would make the bow a viable option. A higher level of system knowledge was required than in 5e and the 4e version was less intuitive and clear. Take your example of STR weapon vs DEX weapon, 5e makes it clear to make the decision about STR and DEX depending on the type of weapons you plan to use, no similarity really. Still, this might make the difference even more obvious to someone who is not trying to ignore it; A 5e fighter that ignores what is clearly laid out in the class description regarding weapon type, and for whatever reason decides to use a weapon that doesn't use his primary stat (or is finesse) is STILL not going to be as nerfed as a similar 4e fighter with a bow. Maybe attacking with their dump stat would make them as bad, relative to the systems, but I am not even sure of that. Then your comparison of expecting a ranger not to cast spells, really? You can't see the difference between a situation wherein reading the class description makes it absolutely clear (a whole subsection on spellcasting) that rangers use magic, and then somehow "expecting them not to" and one where reading the class description tells you that you are proficient with a weapon, and thinking using one might be a "viable" option. A better comparison would be if the 5e description of a ranger made you able to cast spells (proficient), but in actuality it was a terrible idea. Surely you can be objective enough to see the difference. It was a bigger hit in 4e, not scaling your primary numbers did not go well. I agree, that is absurd. On a non-absurd note, non-caster have not been erased, people still want to play them (myself in particular), and I have no idea what "deserving choices" has to do with anything I said. The reality is that the martial/spellcaster dichotomy does not exist and even caster/non-caster is not based on class. There are varying degrees of casting available to all classes and even sub-classes through feats and races. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I'm *GASP* Actually Going to Be Playing 5e in a Few Weeks -- What are the Character Creation Pitfalls to Avoid?
Top