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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6524112" data-attributes="member: 6680772">3e had a lot of positivity -- not just the game, but also the OGL being extremely popular.  But I'm not sure how one can say it wasn't also extremely divisive.  The changes it ushered in weren't largely cosmetic, like 2e was -- 3e is a significantly different game from 2e, with an entirely new design focus.  It brought in a lot of new people, and brought back some old people, and also created a huge schism between those who played TSR-D&D and WotC-D&D.  It changed what an "edition" meant for D&D, perhaps for all RPGs.I never said they did.  I'm saying that if you have a preference, 5e accommodates it.Back the truck up a minute.  I didn't dismiss 4e-style tactical play.  It's a separate issue.  The question of whether one prefers to use minis or not, or how one prefers to use minis (e.g., placeholders, squares, hexes) is a separate issue from a tactical combat system.  To mini or not to mini, as well as to grid or not to grid, are questions that have been with D&D since 1st Edition.  There are plenty of people who loooove playing with minis and 1e tactical play who hate playing 4e's combats, and vice versa.  There are people who love 3e miniature and grid play who hate 4e (and 1e) combats, and vice versa.  So the minutiae of the tactical system is a separate issue.This article isn't talking about tactical combat options or anything like that.  It's talking about the game's assumptions regarding the use of miniatures/tokens.  Consequently, my appraisal of 5e is based purely on that.And incidentally, the reason why 5e was so successful in this area is because the preferences are generally broad -- unlike tactical combat systems!</blockquote>

Verification