Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 8557974" data-attributes="member: 957">Really?&nbsp; Interesting. I suppose we could go bullet by bullet and I'm sure we could find things that I would concede.&nbsp; But not much.When you specifically use the term chassis, with regard to 4E, I certainly think of +level as a design fundamental.&nbsp; Bounded accuracy has its issues (IMO) but it is night and day different than +level.Insta-healing was a major concern.&nbsp; That is still there by default.&nbsp; By 5E is, by design, built to be flexible and when I run 5E healing is much more old school and the system doesn't blink.&nbsp; That is, again, night and day different than the healing concerns that were baked in deal breakers for me.I recall a lot of 4E praise for the realignment of player/DM authority.&nbsp; And I recall a lot of angst from 4E fans over how 5E went backwards on this front.&nbsp; I strongly agree that it went a very different direction than 4E.I really think a lot of this comes down to two things:1) There was a lot of complaint about 5E from 4E fans when it was being rolled out (normal for every edition change).&nbsp; But the perspective is different when the massive success of 5E must be accounted for.2) Exceptions certainly exist, but a lot of 4E fans insisted that they WERE 3E fans until the major upgrades to 3E were released in 4E.&nbsp; I believe that in a very general since, 3E and 5E both share a common trait that differing table could play the game very different ways.&nbsp; And I believe that a 4E fan could play any of them and see similarities.&nbsp; (with 4E still being the pinnacle &quot;by design&quot;).&nbsp; But 4E was the LEAST adaptable to other play styles.&nbsp; So a 4E fans would see the relationships differently than someone who wanted something different.&nbsp; Eye of the beholder is key here.&nbsp; And respecting that different eyes may behold very differently is also key.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 8557974, member: 957"] Really? Interesting. I suppose we could go bullet by bullet and I'm sure we could find things that I would concede. But not much. When you specifically use the term chassis, with regard to 4E, I certainly think of +level as a design fundamental. Bounded accuracy has its issues (IMO) but it is night and day different than +level. Insta-healing was a major concern. That is still there by default. By 5E is, by design, built to be flexible and when I run 5E healing is much more old school and the system doesn't blink. That is, again, night and day different than the healing concerns that were baked in deal breakers for me. I recall a lot of 4E praise for the realignment of player/DM authority. And I recall a lot of angst from 4E fans over how 5E went backwards on this front. I strongly agree that it went a very different direction than 4E. I really think a lot of this comes down to two things: 1) There was a lot of complaint about 5E from 4E fans when it was being rolled out (normal for every edition change). But the perspective is different when the massive success of 5E must be accounted for. 2) Exceptions certainly exist, but a lot of 4E fans insisted that they WERE 3E fans until the major upgrades to 3E were released in 4E. I believe that in a very general since, 3E and 5E both share a common trait that differing table could play the game very different ways. And I believe that a 4E fan could play any of them and see similarities. (with 4E still being the pinnacle "by design"). But 4E was the LEAST adaptable to other play styles. So a 4E fans would see the relationships differently than someone who wanted something different. Eye of the beholder is key here. And respecting that different eyes may behold very differently is also key. [/QUOTE]

Verification