Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6249238" data-attributes="member: 14506">I don't really care if he is edition warring or not. Hopefully I can advance this conversation. From his posting, I think the explanation about trying to use the first few levels as a moratorium on what is working and what is not working is no different from previous editions. Spelling it out like this is the only difference. I am not sure that is helpful or not. The use of backgrounds is brilliant in campaign design and this is a huge step forward in bringing back what essentially is kits. Now classes can be the basis and the backgrounds can be hugely diverse. Long been the way I like it. Now samurai does not need to be a class, it is clearly a background. More diversity of character types with less unique crunch. My complaint with class design is the wrong juxtaposition of the class features and feats. Also the hard coded nature of classes and subclasses. I actually don't like subclasses because they mix too far into backgrounds. I wish backgrounds and subclasses were the same thing. Backgrounds are my favorite part of 5e. Having lower math curve in character advancement and scaling actually improves sandbox play in campaigns, something that Mearls has not brought up. So I look forward to that. I worry about the implementation of some of these concepts mathematically but if there are enough options up front with this then it could be passible.</blockquote>