Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8660366" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Eh. They're very slightly repainting the 2e cover. It's not really the 4e engine, either, just one copying about half the parts but used in completely different ways for completely different reasons even if they can be superficially compared. As I have <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-is-5e-like-4e.681629/#post-8354225" target="_blank">argued elsewhere</a>. Mike Mearls was somewhat inaccurate when he said that 5e was going to have 3e rules with 4e &quot;streamlining.&quot; It would be more accurate to say that it started from 4e rules but re-wrote them as if they had always been present in 3e. In so doing, they demonstrated only the most superficial understanding of lessons from 4e (except in certain areas where 4e faltered, mostly presentation and marketing.) Several of the problems that came up very late in the playtest (such as the &quot;ghoul surprise&quot;) or which have been slowly whittled away at over 5e's lifespan (e.g. dragonborn and Beast Master Rangers being mechanically hot garbage, Sorcerers not getting enough spells, etc.) were things that wouldn't have been a problem if they had learned more from what 4e did well and not tried so damn hard to pretend that 4e never existed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8660366, member: 6790260"] Eh. They're very slightly [I]repainting[/I] the 2e cover. It's not really the 4e engine, either, just one copying about half the parts but used in completely different ways for completely different reasons even if they can be superficially compared. As I have [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-is-5e-like-4e.681629/#post-8354225']argued elsewhere[/URL]. Mike Mearls was somewhat inaccurate when he said that 5e was going to have 3e rules with 4e "streamlining." It would be more accurate to say that it started from 4e rules but re-wrote them as if they had always been present in 3e. In so doing, they demonstrated only the most superficial understanding of lessons from 4e (except in certain areas where 4e faltered, mostly presentation and marketing.) Several of the problems that came up very late in the playtest (such as the "ghoul surprise") or which have been slowly whittled away at over 5e's lifespan (e.g. dragonborn and Beast Master Rangers being mechanically hot garbage, Sorcerers not getting enough spells, etc.) were things that wouldn't have been a problem if they had learned more from what 4e did [I]well[/I] and not tried so damn hard to pretend that 4e never existed. [/QUOTE]

Verification