Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 5965227" data-attributes="member: 5100">Interesting. I'm finding it appropriately balanced. If the players are smart, no worries. If they're dumb, they have problems. It's definitely much more forgiving, IME, than AD&amp;D was, though.Nonsense. I ran a number of very epic campaigns under AD&amp;D, which could be much more &quot;gritty scaredy treasure hunters&quot; than 3e or 4e. I also ran and played in a number of very deadly campaigns.Nope. It had darn well better handle it without breaking, though. 3e and 4e really didn't without risk of breaking. In my AD&amp;D games, it wasn't unusual for the PCs to have only one or two magic weapons, between them, at 5th level. Many module hoppers had an arsenal by 3rd. The system handled either style well. In 3e and 4e, I never could get the rare magic item thing to work without throwing off the math and screwing the players or changing the monster stats. The earlier editions were flexible, but shallow and questionably balanced. The later editions were better balanced and unified, but brittle. I'd like to see 5e carry the flexibility of AD&amp;D, but have the unity (which helps to bring balance) and d20.Once you bring the flexibility back, GM skill level matters more. I don't have an issue with that. In part, that's because I think the defining feature of a TTRPG is the GM. Aside from electronics, that's a major part of what differentiates TTRPGs from a WoW LAN party. Hopefully, a unified system brings not just balance, but lowers the entry requirement for being a good GM. The GM should still be responsible for ensuring the tone and style of the campaign happens, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 5965227, member: 5100"] Interesting. I'm finding it appropriately balanced. If the players are smart, no worries. If they're dumb, they have problems. It's definitely much more forgiving, IME, than AD&D was, though. Nonsense. I ran a number of very epic campaigns under AD&D, which [u]could[/u] be much more "gritty scaredy treasure hunters" than 3e or 4e. I also ran and played in a number of very deadly campaigns. Nope. It had darn well better handle it without breaking, though. 3e and 4e really didn't without risk of breaking. In my AD&D games, it wasn't unusual for the PCs to have only one or two magic weapons, between them, at 5th level. Many module hoppers had an arsenal by 3rd. The system handled either style well. In 3e and 4e, I never could get the rare magic item thing to work without throwing off the math and screwing the players or changing the monster stats. The earlier editions were flexible, but shallow and questionably balanced. The later editions were better balanced and unified, but brittle. I'd like to see 5e carry the flexibility of AD&D, but have the unity (which helps to bring balance) and d20. Once you bring the flexibility back, GM skill level matters more. I don't have an issue with that. In part, that's because I think the defining feature of a TTRPG is the GM. Aside from electronics, that's a major part of what differentiates TTRPGs from a WoW LAN party. Hopefully, a unified system brings not just balance, but lowers the entry requirement for being a good GM. The GM should still be responsible for ensuring the tone and style of the campaign happens, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification