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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6943151" data-attributes="member: 996">In 2e C&T and 3e there were simply a lot more combat options than in 1e, and 5e retained relatively few of them.  So, no, you wouldn't see the full difference just glancing at the classes.  The 3e and later Rogues' Sneak Attack is also significantly more practical to actually use in combat than the AD&D-and-earlier Backstab.Actually, that's exactly what the comment that 5e non-magic-using sub-classes are all focused on DPR was about.  Focus on DPR.  D&D has always been an heroic fantasy RPG, even if 'RPG' hadn't been coined when 0D&D first hit the shelves.  4e was no exception, though it did lend itself particularly well to a cinematic slant on the genre.Ideally, but that ideal was never realized.  Even in 3e which had quite a lot of combat options, characters tended to only use those that they had sunk feats or other resources into improving ('attached' to build if not to class), and, similarly, even though there were decent rules for positioning and environment, the 'action economy' tended to encourage static damage-trading combats (if not outright rocket tag).  And, that was the high-water mark for 'emergent tactical options.'  5e's renewed emphasis on 'fast combat' takes it out of the running for anything of the sort, much like the early game it actively tries to evoke.Which leaves any class without some spells or other magical resource for variety and flexibility prettymuch just putting out the DPR round after round aft- oh, fight's over.   ;P</blockquote>

Verification