Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 6858889" data-attributes="member: 6785785">In response to the original points made in the OP by [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION], I don't know if all of the conclusions you've drawn about 5E would be typical. It sounds like you have fairly minimal experience with the edition, most of which consists of watching others play, is that correct?Your point about randomness is one that I probably can't really argue. To me, with bounded accuracy in place, and the numbers not becoming crazily inflated, you are probably right that te D20 roll has more of an impact. But, since bounded accuracy is applied across the board, isn't it just a question of scale? And since you stated you prefer 4E (and every other edition) I find it odd since that was the edition that most heavily relied upon point but attribute, and then diversified base attacks by attribute according to the strength of a given class. If you're argument about randomness means that someone who built their character well has no better chance than someone who didn't do as good a job, I find it strange that you'd be a fan of an edition that had fighters rely on strength for their attacks and wizards on intelligence, and clerics in wisdom, etc. That practice basically led o everyone havin the same to hit bonus with their primary attacks a cordig to their level. As for defenders, not sure I get that point since barbarians in 5E don't seem to suffer the "take one for the team" flaw you describe. Not do fighters in my experience. And Paladin's definitely have strong defensive abilities and also the ability to dole out some crazy damage. Support roles "taking one for the team" as well? Don't know about that. Bards are more diverse than they've ever been, blending elements of traditional fighters, wizards, clerics, and rogues. I think clerics are perhaps the most uncvuanged class, and one of the least dynamic of 5E, but I don't think they simply "take one for the team". Magic has been a bit toned down across the board. The concentration mechanic seems to have been designed to force decisions and speed up play by making it easier to track effects and so on. I think there are still plenty of ways to excel with magic using characters, but I don't think they dominate as in previous editions.Finally, the optimization guides are less useful? Perhaps. The game does not present nearly as many options as 3E,  which I think is where character build guides really took hold. I haven't noticed, but that's because I don't tend to rely on those types of guides to build my characters. But, ultimately, any game can be played poorly, played competently, or played exceptionally. That doesn't change by game. It's true if checkers or Mario Brothers or Monopoly or D&D 5E. It seems like maybe you just haven't played enough to be exceptional yet. And that's fine. Since you are going to wind up playing, my suggestion would be to try and play a little different. You said because of the game, you only make selfish glass cannons. So then intentionally make a selfless support character, or a tactical tank. Because your criticisms of the game are based on you playing selfish glass cannons, so if you do it again, what would change? Probably nothing. So if you want to actually have a chance at enjoying the game, try another character type, play a little different than you might otherwise, and see what happens.</blockquote>

Verification