Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 8352384" data-attributes="member: 3400">Yeah, we're definitely closer to 2e feel than 3e or 4e for a lot of things with 5e. The magic items are, of course, a major component of that. For all of its good intentions in getting crafting into the hands of the players, it really screwed the pooch on how D&amp;D played and in turning full casters into amok monsters. Returning to a structure in which magic items are benefits, not expected components of developing power, and wands are specialty combat/weird utility items rather than capable of holding any spell for cheap really resets the expectations. One other aspect that probably doesn't get enough consideration is multiple attacks. While the 2e rules imply that you can only get one attack if you have to close, it's not very explicit. I'd wager most players assumed that fighter-types with multiple attacks got them all no matter how far they moved in their turn. Allowing that in 5e gets D&amp;D back to that style of playing martial characters. Removing most of the niggling little abilities given by feats (like avoiding AoO while shoving someone, or allowing someone to split their move by making an attack) also pushes us more toward a free-form combat turn where the main unit of concern - the action and maybe bonus action - is the only thing we need to really focus on, not moving around the board - something also more in keeping with 2e as it was played.All of this contributes to why 5e is, hands down, my favorite edition. While I liked 3e and PF's upgrade to it, 2e always stayed up near the top of my list. And an edition of D&amp;D that has a mix of modern design takes on spells and classes with expectations more like 2nd is right up my alley.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 8352384, member: 3400"] Yeah, we're definitely closer to 2e feel than 3e or 4e for a lot of things with 5e. The magic items are, of course, a [B]major [/B]component of that. For all of its good intentions in getting crafting into the hands of the players, it really screwed the pooch on how D&D played and in turning full casters into amok monsters. Returning to a structure in which magic items are benefits, not expected components of developing power, and wands are specialty combat/weird utility items rather than capable of holding any spell for cheap really resets the expectations. One other aspect that probably doesn't get enough consideration is multiple attacks. While the 2e rules imply that you can only get one attack if you have to close, it's not very explicit. I'd wager most players assumed that fighter-types with multiple attacks got them all no matter how far they moved in their turn. Allowing that in 5e gets D&D back to that style of playing martial characters. Removing most of the niggling little abilities given by feats (like avoiding AoO while shoving someone, or allowing someone to split their move by making an attack) also pushes us more toward a free-form combat turn where the main unit of concern - the action and maybe bonus action - is the only thing we need to really focus on, not moving around the board - something also more in keeping with 2e as it was played. All of this contributes to why 5e is, hands down, my favorite edition. While I liked 3e and PF's upgrade to it, 2e always stayed up near the top of my list. And an edition of D&D that has a mix of modern design takes on spells and classes with expectations more like 2nd is right up my alley. [/QUOTE]

Verification