Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7524445" data-attributes="member: 71699">I know exactly what you mean, and I agree with you about 1e's modularity (and special cases!) that made it easy to remove and replace parts. Yet I can't agree about 5e. So much in 5e is stitched together in sophisticated ways or cross-balanced. Features appeal to underlying principles that cut across multiple classes.I mean, look at their reasoning for Monk unarmed attacks not getting finesse, despite the very similar text that applies to them: it was out of concern for multiclassing cases where multiple core contributors to damage might be stacked. Or look at the text of Crossbow Expert and reflect on how it interacts with the ammunition rules so that a change to one can be stymied by the existence of the other. Or Long Jump in move, which has a tie in with some specific pieces of text under Strength in abilities. Look at the care in wording the features that expand critical hit range, due to interactions across the system such as with GWM. Consider the careful &quot;that you can see&quot; wording, and how it is entangled with multiple spells and the vision and stealth rules. There are even cases such as the Abjuration ward that is carefully not temporary HP, with consequences on the way it interacts with Concentration.And then, consider how much more leverage characters have on the fiction, at lower levels, than earlier editions (sans splatbook madness, of course). That adds to complexity at the table. I think a key win for 5e has been in encouraging DMs and players not to get too hung up on the rules, rather than that the rules are simpler or less sophisticated. In places, they've streamlined... largely without losing expressive power nor complex entanglements across the extant game system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7524445, member: 71699"] I know exactly what you mean, and I agree with you about 1e's modularity (and special cases!) that made it easy to remove and replace parts. Yet I can't agree about 5e. So much in 5e is stitched together in sophisticated ways or cross-balanced. Features appeal to underlying principles that cut across multiple classes. I mean, look at their reasoning for Monk unarmed attacks not getting finesse, despite the very similar text that applies to them: it was out of concern for multiclassing cases where multiple core contributors to damage might be stacked. Or look at the text of Crossbow Expert and reflect on how it interacts with the ammunition rules so that a change to one can be stymied by the existence of the other. Or Long Jump in move, which has a tie in with some specific pieces of text under Strength in abilities. Look at the care in wording the features that expand critical hit range, due to interactions across the system such as with GWM. Consider the careful "that you can see" wording, and how it is entangled with multiple spells and the vision and stealth rules. There are even cases such as the Abjuration ward that is carefully not temporary HP, with consequences on the way it interacts with Concentration. And then, consider how much more leverage characters have on the fiction, at lower levels, than earlier editions (sans splatbook madness, of course). That adds to complexity at the table. I think a key win for 5e has been in encouraging DMs and players not to get too hung up on the rules, rather than that the rules are simpler or less sophisticated. In places, they've streamlined... largely without losing expressive power nor complex entanglements across the extant game system. [/QUOTE]

Verification