Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7888122" data-attributes="member: 93670">I think you took too many pains to distance your post from what I feel like was probably the &quot;another thread&quot; &amp; lost too much foundation for your post resulting in a lot of feel good statements that don't go anywhere.&nbsp;&nbsp; Since I too don't know what your looking for other than &quot;um ok, maybe&quot; I'll go with something from recent discussions on here that does touch on what you wrote.&nbsp; For example your 3e &quot;too much crunch&quot; is both accurate &amp; an oversimplification.&nbsp; In some areas that crunch was <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-3e-skill-system.669480/" target="_blank">good, bad, &amp; sometimes misapplied</a>(recent thread about 3.5 skills).&nbsp; It's possible for 5e's skills to improve on &amp; avoid every one of the 3.5 skill system's pitfalls and rough edges while simultaneously going too far &amp; creating other problems in the process.&nbsp; The same can be said of fixing the golf bag of weapons &amp; from 3.5 by making&nbsp; damage types virtually irrelevant &amp; extending that simplification across weapons as well as armor.&nbsp; Those decisions all may have improved upon things &amp; met design goals to objectively improve one area of the game, but they have effects on other areas that are objectively problematic to other areas of the game &amp; there's a lot of discussion on those kind of things in the <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/nobody-is-playing-high-level-characters.669353/" target="_blank">nobody is playing high level</a> thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 7888122, member: 93670"] I think you took too many pains to distance your post from what I feel like was probably the "another thread" & lost too much foundation for your post resulting in a lot of feel good statements that don't go anywhere. Since I too don't know what your looking for other than "um ok, maybe" I'll go with something from recent discussions on here that does touch on what you wrote. For example your 3e "too much crunch" is both accurate & an oversimplification. In some areas that crunch was [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-3e-skill-system.669480/']good, bad, & sometimes misapplied[/URL](recent thread about 3.5 skills). It's possible for 5e's skills to improve on & avoid every one of the 3.5 skill system's pitfalls and rough edges while simultaneously going too far & creating other problems in the process. The same can be said of fixing the golf bag of weapons & from 3.5 by making damage types virtually irrelevant & extending that simplification across weapons as well as armor. Those decisions all may have improved upon things & met design goals to objectively improve one area of the game, but they have effects on other areas that are objectively problematic to other areas of the game & there's a lot of discussion on those kind of things in the [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/nobody-is-playing-high-level-characters.669353/']nobody is playing high level[/URL] thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification