Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thecasualoblivion" data-source="post: 6875975" data-attributes="member: 59096">In 2E after you got past those levels Fighters were survivable without having to pay for it. Why would I expect this out of the gate? Because in almost every modern rpg not called D&D, computer/console or tabletop, it generally is true out of the gate. Apprentice level also doesn't necessarily mean being made of glass.I want to be a tank without having to sacrifice being awesome. Being a tank in 5E isn't being awesome, it's taking one for the team. Taking one for the team is not awesome. In 2E, the Fighter was a tank while at the same time being the most awesome character in the game with weapon attacks. In 4E, choosing Defender or any other role didn't preclude being awesome. 5E does not reward teamwork while also perversely requiring it. In 4E, Defender was a single choice made at level 1, and you got everything you needed to do the role right there. You then had massive customizability beyond that from every choice you got going forward. It wasn't a trade-off, and it wasn't a sacrifice. Being a Defender didn't compete with other resources. In 5E resources are very limited, and resources for the Defender role compete with doing other things. In 5E, being a good defender means you become less good at everything else. This wasn't true in 4E, and as I said above it wasn't true of 2E either.It's really not that transparent, especially if you have no familiarity with traditional AD&D play. The core books do not really describe old school non-survivable play. They kind of allude to starting at 3 for survivability, but don't really explain why. The game seems to imply that it expects you to start at level 1, without really explaining why the first few levels are less survivable than later. Organized play starts at level 1 while not exactly making it clear that the lack of survivability early on is intentional for organized play. As other people have described, 5E seems to swing wildly between the lack of survivability early on while being the least dangerous D&D past a certain point, and the transition happens quickly and somewhat suddenly. It is never exactly made clear that this is intentional, or if it is intentional why it is so. As for being willing in 2E, it was a mix of a lack of better options at the time and 2E lending itself to house ruling more than 5E.**note** You'll notice I leave 3E out of the above statements. This is for two reasons:1. 3E play varied wildly from table to table, making generalizations difficult2. In optimized 3E play, tanking/melee was almost completely irrelevant.</blockquote>

Verification