Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 6738268" data-attributes="member: 22362">True - but there are much fewer mechanical options that the full 4e. Because of the slow release, which is by design. Hence - 5e is more narrow (on the whole), by design.Not a bad thing - but still a thing.Yeah, in a way, of course it's implementation. But I'm a big proponent of &quot;you are what you can do&quot; - so concept and implementation go hand in hand for me. I know that for others, the link needn't be as strong.My wizard was on his way to being a &quot;True Namer&quot; (demon summoning/binding/control) and had pretty much only custom summon monster [number] in 3.x - when he got ported over to 4e, I was able to refluff most of my powers to create very similar effects.In 5e... not so much. It'd take about 17 levels' worth of multiple classes to get to what my character was about in 4e - which is a problem, since we're only level 11... Also, there's a big loss in granularity that particularly affects my character as he had &quot;portions&quot; of many of the 5e feats - which is an obvious problem when porting over.To get closer to what he was about (and how he played at the table), the best class would probably be the druid - but then I have to deal with the whole &quot;animal shape&quot; thing...There are many homebrew options that would fairly quickly solve my woes, but we're trying to keep pretty close to rules as presented (RAP?) for the caster classes. It's not that the character itself doesn't work (although in my experience at the table - he doesn't... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :P"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />) it's that he's not really recognizable as the same character in a &quot;you are what you can do&quot; sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoutonRustique, post: 6738268, member: 22362"] True - but there are much fewer mechanical options that the full 4e. [I]Because[/I] of the slow release, which is [I]by design[/I]. Hence - 5e is more narrow (on the whole), by design. Not a [I]bad[/I] thing - but still a thing. Yeah, in a way, of course it's implementation. But I'm a big proponent of "you are what you can do" - so concept and implementation go hand in hand for me. I know that for others, the link needn't be as strong. My wizard was on his way to being a "True Namer" (demon summoning/binding/control) and had pretty much only custom [I]summon monster [number][/I] in 3.x - when he got ported over to 4e, I was able to refluff most of my powers to create very similar effects. In 5e... not so much. It'd take about 17 levels' worth of multiple classes to get to what my character was about in 4e - which is a problem, since we're only level 11... Also, there's a big loss in granularity that particularly affects my character as he had "portions" of many of the 5e feats - which is an obvious problem when porting over. To get closer to what he was about (and how he played at the table), the best class would probably be the druid - but then I have to deal with the whole "animal shape" thing... There are many homebrew options that would fairly quickly solve my woes, but we're trying to keep pretty close to rules as presented (RAP?) for the caster classes. It's not that the character itself doesn't [I]work[/I] (although in my experience at the table - he doesn't... :P) it's that he's not really recognizable as the same character in a "you are what you can do" sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification