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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 9841184" data-attributes="member: 9254">As the DM in 2 of the 3 campaigns that went 1-20something, I disagree.  I had a blast both times.  I relished my players freaking when I unleashed some new terror on them (usually an official RAW foe with a different description) and reveled when they beat it.The 2e game in 1992-94 didn't have all the supplements, but there were still plenty of "complete" books over that span.  Yes, I had to be sure items were appropriate for the whole party without any guidance on what that meant, which kind of sucked.  3e had magic item guidelines, which made it easier. The 3e game started with just the PHB before the DMG was out and made it to the ELH & Bt9S. which isn't a patch on Primal Order but did spice things up, especially for the fighter.  I do miss casters losing spells from interruptions in 5e as it reduces what was a fighter-role, but 5e reducing casters' top tier spell power by 75% is a viable nerf.  Since they don't have to deal with vancian prep, its a fair trade imo.  It does mean every game has to have the "anti-caster" to thwart NPCs, which is a little boring.  The downside of the 5e nerfs is that 5e casters tend to find a niche and live there, casting the same spells all the time because the party has evolved aset of tactics that work. Without the spell slots or tactical options of 3e, in-game experimentation is much more limited.  I always liked it when a player said "I haven't used this spell to do this before, so this may suck or it could be awesome".</blockquote>

Verification