Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6876150" data-attributes="member: 996">Sure.  IMHO, it points to an intent to evoke the nostalgia factor of the meatgrinder, but not to the point that it stops being fun (which'll obviously be different for different players, but just, y'know, in general, probably based on those polls we all filled out during the playtest - y'all filled out those poles, didn't'ay?).Just speculation on my part, but I have a sneaking suspicious that the idea is to establish that the game is 'deadly'/dangerous/exciting early on, so later level cakewalks don't seem boring.No one's /requiring/ it, but a goal of 5e was to broaden it's appeal, not merely shift it away from existing fans of the then-current edition.  Every fan we lose is a very real failure, so I'm glade Mr. Oblivion, here is at least giving it a chance, and venting his frustrations rather than not trying it at all and edition-warring against it. (At least, I hope that he's honestly trying it - it's not like no one ever /claimed/ to try a new ed while maligning it in ways that showed they'd clearly never cracked the book.) Quite aside from 4e books actually being burned and the videos posted, the ongoing support for past editions and the styles associated with them does vary.  The classic game has the whole OSR thing going, that's still pretty significant.  3e is immortalized via the OGL and it's current mortal avatar, Pathfinder, is still going strong.  2e, of course, is the single edition most strongly reflected by 5e.  5e, for it's part, in addition to being the current edition, is also covered by the OGL and has a limited SRD, so it is at least a demi-god compared to 3e's outright immortal status, even when it's day in the sun eventually ends (assuming it doesn't turn out to be the last edition of D&D).No, it's nothing unusual, even in 1e when the deadly first-level of play was drawn out by the much higher exp targets for level 2.  Back in the day, we often used <s>variants</s> house-rules to increase survivability to get there.  But, then, as now, the DM could always tweak and soft-ball encounters and generally help you get through to 3rd or 5th level or so when your characters became viable on their own.  We have lots of experienced DMs out there who know how to preserve fun and PC lives through low levels.  The anomaly, perhaps, is the player who suffers through it all 'RAW.'Formal 'Roles,' balanced classes, yep.  The 4e fighter was a respectable secondary striker from the PH1, not because of the support it, like all the PH1 classes, got over the edition's brief run.  Every class had at least one secondary role, some called out explicitly, others not so much.  The Swordmage shaded into Controller, with some AE attacks, more variety in typed damage and conditions than the fighter, for instance.As opposed to a Tier 1 being better at everything than some other, benighted Tier-5 class was good at, sure.  'Balance,' again.  An anomaly in the grand sweep of D&D history, I suppose, but not an unpleasant nor entirely unlamented one.He seems to have felt he got the level of 'awesome' he needed from 4e, which certainly didn't feature characters who couldn't be hit or hurt, let alone while dishing massive damage.  So, no, probably not that, at all.  I think he's just having a rough time with the random-quasi-lethality of 1st level 5e (and, perhaps, the way the 'awesome' of melee types might not kick in until they get extra attack), and will get into it more as he enters the 'sweet spot' towards the end of apprentice tier.An excellent idea.  The game plays very differently at low level than at mid.  If you'd suffered through the edition war - as thecasualoblivion did, BTW, and suffered, IIRC, quite the change of heart with Essentials, too - you'd realize just how tragically true that statement is.  But, I don't that's where he's coming from.  Really, I have seen very little of that kind of attitude with 5e, which is refreshing.5e fighters don't seem much less DPR-tastic than in 2e.  What's missing?Seemed pretty awesome in one campaign I ran.  It was certainly less-supported, as a Campaign-setting rather than Core class, but didn't fall through the cracks as lamentably as, say, the Seeker.To be fair, the Berserker actually switched modes to Striker when it raged, and the defender brand of 'control' should not be confused with the actual Controller role.The 'team' contributions could very well be the 'awesome.'Not that big - though, yeah, as a 'compromise' edition trying to evoke the classic game, inevitably, it was going to be a step back from the latest edition.  Healing Word, for instance, stayed in, so you can stand up an ally and still make your attack that round, for instance.You have only just tried first level, so far, though, so I hope you'll keep an open mind.  I've seen much better results at 5th-8th.There aren't formal roles in 5e, so that's the wrong place to look for balance.  Balance exists mostly in the resource schedule, over a 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest 'day,' and is a very dynamic 'spotlight' style thing largely under the auspices of the DM.  It's not something you'll find just in examining the mechanics.I have to disagree.  It's easier to house-rule a system with a single, simple, resolution system (d20) as a foundation than a heterogenous one.  Though there's less need to issue formal (let alone written) <s>variants</s> house-rules in 5e than in 2e, because 5e lends itself to introducing all the tweaks and adjustments you need through in-the-moment rulings.E6 seemed pretty popular.</blockquote>

Verification