Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="osarusan" data-source="post: 7781919" data-attributes="member: 13950">YES!! Absolutely 100% agree.While I love a lot of the simplifications that have been put into D&D, some of them just really bug me. Simplification is good for streamlining play, but not at the expense of vital flavor. In 2e it really mattered what weapon you chose. There were benefits and penalties at certain times. I feel that since 3e it has became so simple to just crunch the numbers and get a "this is the only correct choice" kind of result. This goes both for weapons and armor, but also for feat choice, subclass choice, and even things like what animal you polymorph into. 3e+ D&D and Pathfinder were revolutionary, but so much of them has become a game of running the numbers and finding the actual best choice.I feel like simplifying the monsters and the rules for DMs was great (I *love* the 5e Monster Manual), but in oversimplifying things on the players' end, they lost a lot of the flavor of the game.That's why I prefer Hackmaster 5e to D&D these days. It may be a little over-crunchy at times, but it doesn't feel like you're competing with yourself to make the absolute "best" build for your character.</blockquote>