NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6949605" data-attributes="member: 996">Backgrounds, in 4e & 5e, both, are like the simpler Kits in 2e, and 4e Themes were comparable to the more substantial 2e Kits.  5e is entirely open to custom backgrounds, too.  So all it would take is turning on all the optional 'tactical' rules, expanding some classes' tactical options, tweaking monster math to allow combats to last long enough for tactics (other than Alpha Strike & focus fire) to have an impact, and creating Backgrounds to mimic some of the more interesting 2e Kits. Character optimization is a system master activity, it's great fun once you know the system inside-out, a sort of depth-of-play issue (it can be good or bad, a system that can handle it gains depth of play from optimization, a less robust system loses it as most apparent options are discovered to be non-viable).  Not everyone strives for, let alone achieves that level of system mastery.  5e doesn't go out of it's way to reward system mastery like 3.x intentionally did, nor out of its way to restrain it with mechanical balance the way 4e did, rather it sabotages it at the basic level by giving them no solid/definable system to master - 5e is fluid at the whim of the DM, you'll have to master him, not the system.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  But, y'know, an ever-growing audience sure doesn't sound 'narrowed' to me.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Whether it's because of the game itself, or riding on the coat-tails of the rise in boardgame popularity, IDK.  I'll take it.OK, so there is some truth to this, I'm sure.  5e is trying to be conciliatory in the post-edition-war era, and consolation can often be mistake for capitulation.  But, really, 4e was hardly the powergamers' dream that 3.x was, the game had already started pulling back from the peak of intentional rewards for system mastery, and, 5e is far less robustly balanced than 4e, so you can powergame like crazy with more significant results - the DM just has unlimited licence to pull the rug out from under you when you do.  True powergaming in 5e is gaming the DM, not the system. First of all, we're all RPGers, whether we like telling cooperative stories, portraying/exploring/developing a character (capabilities and/or personality), or plumbing the depths of play possible in a complex game.  It's RP /and/ G, incomplete without both.  Relative to 3.5, when those imbalances were at their absolute greatest (Tier 1 vs Tier 5), perhaps.  Compared to the heavily-restricted, fragile magic-user of the early game, maybe not so much.  If we recall how closely-balanced martial classes were with 'caster' classes of the corresponding role before Essentials...I was so pleased with the return of 3.x/PF's elegant MCing system.  I do seem to recall a number of such ideas being discussed on line back then, and I even used something of the sort in my 3.0 campaign.It seems like Mike Mearls was all but working alone, and was certainly the lead, so I doubt there was disunity of the sort you speculate about.  Rather, my guess would be that what you're seeing is a consequence of 5e as a (The!) 'Big Tent' edition, trying to be inclusive towards fans of each and every prior edition...</blockquote>

Verification