Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 6564158" data-attributes="member: 463">I guess 5e design is vulnerable to Illusionism, if you want to run it that way. Surely it ought not to require the same level of illusionism as RAW 3e/PF does if you want Fighter types to not keep dying, though. I'm using 5e for a sandbox campaign I'm about to start, my normal style - all rolls in the open, no fudging etc. It ought to be fine for that. Like 3e/PF it seems not particularly suited for plot-protected linear play, though high level 5e PCs seem rather more robust.I definitely find 4e to be player-empowering both as a player and when GMing. It gives a lot of mechanical protection to PCs, and its skill system strongly encourages improvisation and creative play - which can be derided as 'mother may I' (a phrase I hate) by some, but 4e strongly encourages the GM to set reasonable DCs and allow effective creative use of skills and powers, albeit generally not to the extent of 'I win' buttons - 4e assumes that an Arcana check to open a warded portal is pretty much exactly equivalent to a Thievery check to open a mechanical lock, whereas 3e/PF tends to treat magic as far more effective.I find 4e to be very poorly suited for sandbox exploratory play - it purposely does not support that pillar at all* - which is a big problem for a 'generic D&amp;D' game system. But 4e does dramatic/Pemertonian <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="(:" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; (:"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname="(:" />D) play excellently, and for sandbox I know to use BX, 1e, 5e etc etc.*Well there's the 'mega adventure' advice in the 4e DMG, which sort-of attempts to advise on 4e sandbox play, but the advice - eg 'level up all the adventure sites to keep pace with the PCs' advancement' - just tends to show how badly 4e works with this style IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 6564158, member: 463"] I guess 5e design is vulnerable to Illusionism, if you want to run it that way. Surely it ought not to require the same level of illusionism as RAW 3e/PF does if you want Fighter types to not keep dying, though. I'm using 5e for a sandbox campaign I'm about to start, my normal style - all rolls in the open, no fudging etc. It ought to be fine for that. Like 3e/PF it seems not particularly suited for plot-protected linear play, though high level 5e PCs seem rather more robust. I definitely find 4e to be player-empowering both as a player and when GMing. It gives a lot of mechanical protection to PCs, and its skill system strongly encourages improvisation and creative play - which can be derided as 'mother may I' (a phrase I hate) by some, but 4e strongly encourages the GM to set reasonable DCs and allow effective creative use of skills and powers, albeit generally not to the extent of 'I win' buttons - 4e assumes that an Arcana check to open a warded portal is pretty much exactly equivalent to a Thievery check to open a mechanical lock, whereas 3e/PF tends to treat magic as far more effective. I find 4e to be very poorly suited for sandbox exploratory play - it purposely does not support that pillar at all* - which is a big problem for a 'generic D&D' game system. But 4e does dramatic/Pemertonian (:D) play excellently, and for sandbox I know to use BX, 1e, 5e etc etc. *Well there's the 'mega adventure' advice in the 4e DMG, which sort-of attempts to advise on 4e sandbox play, but the advice - eg 'level up all the adventure sites to keep pace with the PCs' advancement' - just tends to show how badly 4e works with this style IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification