Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cybit" data-source="post: 6249363" data-attributes="member: 66111">So, multiple responses to the multitude of questions1) As someone who DM'd 3E/PFS/4E for many years now, 5E is so far being the easiest to DM (DM'ing 3 sessions of it a week, one with hardcore PFS players, a second with a group of 8-12 year olds, the third being a group of 20something ish coworkers), with 4E being a close second.  While I will always love 4E having everything in one page, 5E has merged a lot of the best of both worldsFor instance: monsters are simpler, with their special abilities defined on the monster entry (Woohoo!), and with no fort/ref/will/BAB, there is far less info necessary to look throughBounded accuracy is nice in that less ridiculous numbers = less time on math.  Monsters have raw XP values, rather than the completely useless CR system (ok, it's not completely useless, but it sure misses the mark frequently).Monsters being threats much longer through the game makes thinking about what to throw at players a lot simpler.2) Warlord / Healer bit - Basically, the "can't shout a hand back on" is intended to be a bit of sarcasm and humor, not too much of a design change.  Based on what I've seen so far - the issue is actually pretty simple to resolve: Warlords give out temp HP instead of normal HP.  This fits them well with the narrative and the mechanic, and means that having a cleric and warlord is now a complementary bit.  Also, the reason you do not see "warlord" style healing in the open playtest is that it was not done yet.  I might have to edit this last part out, but we have a functional warlord type in our playtest game, and she is totally frakking badass.  This warlord > 4E warlord, IMO.  3) Mearls Edition WarringBased on numerous conversations I've had with folks involved with the design (huzzah for living in Seattle and frequenting the same gamer bars) and development, I don't think they're intending to come off as edition warring.  Because of the launch of 4E (which apparently had edition warring that I missed for whatever reason) was so contentious, I think it is easy to be wearing the lens of taking certain comments in a way that would imply edition warring.  I think they're just trying to explain some of their rationale for what they are doing, regardless of the edition the mechanic is from.I believe that they are looking to try to make the next game that drags younger gamers into tabletop gaming.  Fiasco, Pathfinder, etc, are great games for experienced RPG players as well as the 20 something crowd, but no RPG exists currently that you can play during lunch / at recess in a school - the way many original D&D fans first started playing.  This is why I think they're being more explanatory about their decision making process, which can come off as edition warring, since many folks are viewing L&L through the prism of the 4E launch.</blockquote>

Verification