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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9580226" data-attributes="member: 6799660">It's certainly notable as a return to form, rather than in absolute terms. Regarding the magic items -- this is true, but it was decidedly different from 3e/4e, right? They were random, and without concrete purchasing rules. You couldn't plan around them -- pick weapon proficiencies/specializations with the assumption you would get the right weapons, or memorize spells based on always having a scroll of knock available, etc. I think that made a huge difference.People keep saying this. FWIW, there are some really indisputable parallels. Compared to TSR-era, everyone is on the same xp schedule and there are dwarven wizards and paladins and rangers aren't mostly-better fighters you get rewarded for high stat rolls and so on. Likewise there are mechanical bits like fitting everything possible to d20 and feats and multiclassing working the same, and so on. However, there are plenty of impactful differences. 3e trying to make the sim side of the game much more concrete and codify rules for most activities and codifying RAW (compared to earlier versions stated contempt for rules lawyers) stands in pretty stark contrast to 5e's rulings-over-rules and natural-language mission statements. Core-rule-from-the-start magic item purchasing and crafting (with individual costs and concrete formula) rules also highly effected gameplay (both in being able to design builds around having certain items and play strategies like 3e Vancian casters memorizing spells of a certain likelihood of use, and then crafting scrolls for rare-events and wands for constant ones).Just reading the game books (particularly the character creation part of the PHBs) certainly makes the games seem like different attempts at the same thing, but when they play out, or certainly when you DM them, there certainly seem to be a lot of dissimilarities that show up -- enough for me to say that they don't stand out as more alike than other edition to edition comparisons.It's kind of like how 1e and 2e look neigh identical if you don't factor in how much the optional-rule stuff (especially xp options) or play-pattern focus can change how the game plays (or perhaps similar to GURPS and Hero System look so similar when reading character creation, but decidedly reward different playstyles).Again, not saying this is wrong or that there are not obvious similarities, just that there are contraindicators as well.That super does not feel like a 5e-specific thing. I've been in online D&D discussion since -- I guess technically since the 1e-->2e shift (although most significantly ~93 and onward)-- and this is not new. Not only does every edition have dedicated fans, detractors, and defenders, but people have tended to have a nuanced relationship with whatever edition is current along with whichever editions are their most/least favorite (i.e. if you love 1e and hate BECMI, you'll have a lot to say about 1e, BECMI, and 5e.2024 right now, and had a lot to say about 1e, BECMI, and 3.0 back in 2002).</blockquote>

Verification