Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 7995062" data-attributes="member: 6993955"><p>[USER=14159]@wingsandsword[/USER] - There are still a lot of 3.X fans here, myself included. There's nothing wrong with being honest about pros and cons of the editions though. I'm very much in your boat, I didn't play 4E at all, and then came back with 5E. Like you, I enjoy the fiddly bits of 3.X, and I'm not 'hostile' to them. That said, I have played a lot of games that have a high 'fiddly bit' quotient, and I found 5E to be a breath of fresh air in that regard. I like using backgrounds and broader skills to define character knowledge sets - I find it actually more descriptive in some ways because a character doesn't need to be expressed in terms of a long list of specific skills, but rather as a broad group of competencies. In both editions there are going to be cases where an action doesn't exactly fit, or seems outside a skill or whatever. I find it far easier to adjudicate those cases in 5E. I also find that player expectations are far different because there's less focus on trying to find a use for your best sets of bonuses and trying to shoehorn an action into one skill rather than another based on bonuses. That still happens in 5E of course, but not to the same extent.</p></blockquote><p></p>