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: 6994698" data-attributes="member: 996">Rules can be pretty arbitrary (and, let's face it, pretty bad), so it's hard to disagree with that.  OTOH, that a rules element in a past edition enabled a concept or a playstyle, is reason enough that 5e, even if it if has to use a quite different rules element to do it, enable the same things and do so (if the DM's on board) maybe not as well, but well enough not to completely disappoint.There are plenty of examples of 5e pulling that off with regard to editions of the classic game.  The Champion is not, exactly, a 2e fighter in it's mechanical details, but you can reprise a fighter you played in 2e, and have it feel pretty similar.  You won't technically be using weapon specialization nor ever making 2 attacks per 3 rounds or calculating THAC0, but you'll be dishing out a lot of damage via multiple attacks with you chosen combat style.  Then there are examples where the classic concept is covered, in the positive sense of what it can do, but has a great deal more piled onto it (or a lot of limitations and restrictions removed), so that it feels different, but it's hard to complain that it 'lacks' anything.  5e's take on Vancian casting is a prime example.  A 5e wizard has the spellcasting-system advantages of both a traditional prepped caster and a 3.x spontaneous caster, and faces fewer limitations on that casting than ever.  It's possible to complain it doesn't feel like classic magic-user, it's hard to come up with any way that 'adding' to it will get it there - it'd need to have things taken away, and restrictions imposed.There are some cases where clear and significant attempts have been made, but it's still just close.  You don't have 1e-style multi-classing giving you an old-school fighter/magic-user, but you do have Backgrounds that let you mix in a taste of one with the other, and the EK for a fighter-heavy take on the concept (and, later, we got the Bladesinger for the wizard-heavy take).  You could still argue that we don't /quite/ have a 'real' fighter/magic-user in 5e, though, not because of the specific mechanics, but because the feel of neatly 'averaging' the two isn't quite there with either sub-class, nor with the option of 3e-style MCing.There are also cases where it just hasn't pulled it off yet.  The 3.x and 4e fighters, and the Warlord, for closely related instances.  Yes, the BM takes a stab at covering some of same concepts, superficially, but it falls too far short in what it can actually deliver.  And, there are the hopeful cases where something is in the works.  Psionics in the form of the Mystic being the clearest example.</blockquote>

Verification