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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6370263">I too question what exactly it took from 4E.I say this as being completely un-read on 2nd, but it reads like 3.5-lite.  Not the worst outcome for me personally since I do enjoy 3.X and my biggest kvetch about it was the overcomplication that grew out of it.  If there are elements from 4th, then they are likely systemic ones as 5th seems a lot smoother than raw, core 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder, less fiddly math you constantly have to check and recheck.  Obviously we've drawn some popular elements from 4th out, such as Dragonborn, Tieflings and Drow (though arguably at least one of those existed in a popular form prior to 4th).  Fighters feel more "Book of 9 Swords"-ish than they do 4th though, but they have certainly been improved over their 3.X predecessors in many necessary ways.  Healing and party composition seems to at least have been advised along 4E lines as it feels like a couple of the casting classes can cover the healing corner of the trinity instead of just the traditional Cleric.  It seems that all classes are capable of some form of limited in-combat defense or self-healing ala Second Wind, which is nice.On the whole though I really don't "feel" the 4th ed bits.  It feels more like they've taken earlier components and fixed their problems with 4E bandages and when those came off, all we have are earlier concepts that are more functional.  Which is precisely the vibe I was getting throughout development, it's the edition to bring back the oldschoolers, without bringing back the oldschooler problems.</blockquote>

Verification