Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 7886120" data-attributes="member: 6669384">Each edition has had strong and weak points.1st edition was fairly freewheeling, as was 2nd.  2nd introduced skills as something other than "noncombat proficiencies".  3e standardized the mechanic and reversed the AC scale.  Earlier, lower was better, but from 3e on higher was.This allowed a dice/combat simplification that eliminated the need for half a dozen charts and accelerated play.  They also introduced Feats and a more complete skill system.  In addition to that, the formalized the item slot/location rules and clearly defined what stacks and what doesn't.  Prior to that 2 magic Rings of Protection stacked, for example.With the addition of feats and a progressive skill system (you can add points to get better, over time) an amazing thing happened:  More rules and more structure allowed for far more flexibility and creativity.  Between the improved cross-classing rules and prestige classes it became possible to sculpt and fine tune a character to be just about anything you wanted.It also opened the door for new levels of abuse, as some people decided that the "anything you wanted" thing included "broken".  Additionally it wasn't really play tested for anything above about level 10.4th edition tried to rein in the rampant abuse, but in doing so lost the flexibility that had  become D&D's hallmark.  It introduced new concepts, such as Skill Challenges, which were a much needed way to formally address non-combat encounters and situations.  My own problrms with it were that it seemed like an attempt to move World of Warcraft to the tabletop, with all the status bookkeeping inherent in that, and without a computer to keep track of it.Pathfinder, often described as D&D 3.75, also took a shot at fixing some of 3.5's problems, but unlike 4e they didn't just throw everything out and start over.  They removed some of the abuse potential by limiting or eliminating prestige classes.  They tried to correct some class-related power imbalances, but they did it by powering everyone up.  That changed the imbalances, but didn't really address them very well.I've played 5e, but not a lot, so any opinion or analysis I expressed here would be poorly informed at best.One thing I saw (and disliked) in 4e, which they carried over to 5e, was the non-progressive skill system.  You're either trained or you aren't, but there aren't any gradations.  You can't improve a skill through practice and training.  Instead you advance all skills (even those you never use in game) based on levels.  In 4e that advancement was an illusion, since the DC advances at the same rate.Over all, the economy of the game world has been broken since day one.  Different editions have had different flavors of "broken", but "broken" has been a constant.The flaws with skill challenges in 4e can be handled by a good DM.  So can the abuse of race/class/prestige class  in 3e. The reality is that a good DM can make any system work, and a bad DM can't make any system work.  What we need are systems between those two extremes, systems and mechanics that the average DM can keep workable.  In that light I see the most potential in 1/2E, 3.*e and Pathfinder.  Your mileage may vary, naturally.</blockquote>

Verification