Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6742209" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yeah, for all my 5e gripes (esp. what and how much it lifted from other eds), Backgrounds were absolutely influenced by 4e Backgrounds and Themes--all to the good. The fact that almost everyone who raves about the 5e version is absolutely convinced, not only that they're brand-new to 5e, but that 4e was &quot;a roleplay unfriendly...mess,&quot; is extremely sad IMO. What's good for the goose was apparently <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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" /><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=":)" />-awful for the gander. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />I dunno on that one. I don't think Prestige Classes are at all the same sort of thing, at least if the one playtest PrC is meant to be distinctly emblematic. 5e PrCs appear to be more like &quot;you access the same thing you could always access, but in a sharply distinct way,&quot; rather than &quot;you're still basically an X, but you have a greater breadth of customization.&quot; Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I really do feel like Themes were something purely addative--a mechanical &quot;sidecar,&quot; if you will--while PrCs are a mixture of addative and subtractive (since you're not advancing as a Sorcerer or Warlock or w/e, you're advancing as a Rune Scribe with distinct but related abilities).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6742209, member: 6790260"] Yeah, for all my 5e gripes (esp. [I]what[/I] and [I]how much[/I] it lifted from other eds), Backgrounds were [I]absolutely[/I] influenced by 4e Backgrounds and Themes--all to the good. The fact that almost everyone who raves about the 5e version is absolutely convinced, not only that they're brand-new to 5e, but that 4e was "a roleplay unfriendly...mess," is extremely sad IMO. What's good for the goose was apparently :):):):)-awful for the gander. :( I dunno on that one. I don't think Prestige Classes are at all the same sort of thing, at least if the one playtest PrC is meant to be distinctly emblematic. 5e PrCs appear to be more like "you access the same thing you could always access, but in a sharply distinct [I]way[/I]," rather than "you're still basically an X, but you have a greater breadth of customization." Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I really do feel like Themes were something purely addative--a mechanical "sidecar," if you will--while PrCs are a mixture of addative and subtractive (since you're [I]not[/I] advancing as a Sorcerer or Warlock or w/e, you're advancing as a Rune Scribe with distinct but related abilities). [/QUOTE]

Verification