Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 6358771" data-attributes="member: 1210">We see this differently. You are correct in that HS in 4e were the limited core of healing, but basically, 4e allowed tons more new healing effects that relied on surges, which made them the core, while keeping many of the old surgeless healing effects as more rare, daily abilities like cure light wounds. 5e simply shifts the emphasis back to spells and effects that don't use HD while continuing to use HD for bonus healing during a rest. Also, I wouldn't be surprised to see options for both "most all healing uses HD" and "no spending HD to heal" in the DMG; that easily allows for both 1e through 3e style play and 4e style play. Again, if someone wants to, they can easily adjust the dials on this by making a short rest 5 minutes- or, for that matter, by making the long rest take that week you mention!I never saw short rests in 3.5, but I didn't pick up the Book of 9 Swords or whatever it was called, which had a bunch of new mechanics in it as I understand it. Like Dungeonscape, I think it had a lot of trial stuff for 4e floated in it.I'd put kits as closer to backgrounds, but I agree that there's a lot of crossover there (e.g. assassin rogues). But I never used kits until Skills & Powers introduced non-class-specific ones, which was one of the only elements of the S&P book that I allowed in my game.I think the similarities are more striking than the differences, and vastly prefer the rebuilt bounded accuracy technique. 4e had a sort of "bounded at a given level" accuracy going on, which was just a tighter form of controlled bonus inflation. Fair enough- I'm thinking of things like a wizard's arcane recovery, which emulates encounter powers in a tweaked way, for instance.It basically lets you use the 4e PH fighter's "you're not going anywhere!" stickiness abilities. That's fine with me. It certainly wasn't my perfect game. I'm glad they are keeping the good stuff and tossing the bad stuff, and it looks to me like they are doing that with EVERY edition!For instance- from BECMI, they are keeping elegant simplicity for magic items and spells, an emphasis on imaginative play, domain rulership (in the DMG), etc. while tossing out a lot of the clunkiness and weird, nonsensible rules and stuff. From 1e, they are keeping a lot of flavor, the classic races and classes, the notion of wizards as glass cannons and fighters as tanks, etc. They are tossing weird mechanics and unnecessary complexity like weapon vs AC type modifiers, descending AC, etc. From 2e, they are keeping specialty priests, expanded lore for the campaign worlds, etc. while tossing all the catering to the anti-D&D crowd. From 3e, they are keeping a unified core mechanic, unified xp charts, multiclassing system, etc. while tossing massively escalating bonuses, the magic item Christmas tree effect, etc.I really think 5e will hit the right notes for me and will enable easy emulation of any D&D edition. I'm sure there are plenty of folks who will still prefer each earlier version of D&D, but it looks to solve my issues with both 3e and 4e while giving me what they lost that I loved in earlier versions of the game. For the record, right now I'm running a 1e game, finishing up my epic 4e game and running the 5e Starter Set. I love them all, and each gives me a bit of a different feeling, and I don't have a sure favorite between them. But once I start my 'real' 5e campaign, once I've got the core books in hand, I feel like it's going to scratch all those different D&D itches at once for me.</blockquote>

Verification