Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Unearthed Arcana Fighter: Samurai, Sharpshooter, Arcane Archer & Knight
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 7704782" data-attributes="member: 6801252"><p>Quite frankly I have to speak up, I love 5e but 4e was the edition I started with (well short of a stint with like Neverwinter Nights 2), ironically, from the perspective of most of you when I see 4e mechanics pop up in 5e it starts to feel more like it's actually an inclusive edition of DND. Not just a reactionary cash grab to pathfinder luring away some of the market of previous players. In short, it starts to feel a little more like home- it has a weird effect, in that a lot of things i would have winced at near the end of 4e's life (Vancian casting, asymmetrical progression, 3.5 multiclassing, feat deficit, lack of choice on level up, no warlord, DM centric magic items) are more palatable to me than they once were. </p><p></p><p>Now, there are a bunch of things i like about 5e- it's simpler, and there are fewer trap options (which is the only thing I really dislike about Splat, otherwise, i love having pretty much everything represented mechanically somewhere in the edition.) It uses basic essentials design to bridge some of the gap between 4e and prior editions, leaving us with options that feel like prior edition counterparts, but with that signature mechanical flair of "everyone is useful" that distinguishes 4e. Believe me I know, i'm reasonably active over at the /r/unearthedarcana sub-reddit, something that couldn't have been if the mechanics in 5e were as complex as 4e made them. </p><p></p><p>All of that being said, reading these comments makes me sad- I love the knight's mark, and feel happy they're using the 4e design elements that my players and I love. It seems kind of aggressive to demand that it can't be a part of some splat sub-class that isn't even a part of the core PHB. I jumped on board with 5e because of the inclusive promise that it would represent a common foundation for all kinds of styles of play, so I'd be deeply disappointment if this didn't happen at some point. Even if it was Gamist, which i don't necessarily agree with, there are plenty of people whom do play DND for gamist reasons, and considering DND compares badly for narrativist design but tries it anyway, and compares badly to some things for simulationist design, but tries it anyway, I don't see why we can't take that fact and embrace it as being THE strength of DND as a tabletop game, that it compromises to get a wide range of players with different goals and sensibilities all at the same table having fun. It's probably one of the reasons for DND's popularity, White Wolf only really draws on the narrativist folks, Warhammer draws mainly on the gamist folks, and Pathfinder atm, probably gets the Simulationist players- as a continuation of the most simulationist edition of DND. Since 5e released, I think it's critical acclaim and popularity stem from the fact that it's accessible for all of these players- there are narrative elements, game elements, and simulation elements to get excited about, which in turn makes it easier to get more people to the table. </p><p></p><p>It honestly does make me feel kinda like the point isn't a good faith disagreement with the mechanic as it's implemented in 5e, but as part of a crusade against 4e- like any traces of that oft-hated edition I love need to be dealt with on the basis of existing under the DND brand, even if they're easily avoidable elements, like a sub class released multiple years after the edition core book in an internet article that *maybe* gets published in an expansion of the game. Like if we were discussing this in a vacuum, I could imagine denying the idea as being something the designers clearly aren't interested in doing or isn't popular enough, but since we're talking about it after the designers (whom do quite a bit of market research with this edition) made it, that seems sort of disingenuous.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The-Magic-Sword, post: 7704782, member: 6801252"] Quite frankly I have to speak up, I love 5e but 4e was the edition I started with (well short of a stint with like Neverwinter Nights 2), ironically, from the perspective of most of you when I see 4e mechanics pop up in 5e it starts to feel more like it's actually an inclusive edition of DND. Not just a reactionary cash grab to pathfinder luring away some of the market of previous players. In short, it starts to feel a little more like home- it has a weird effect, in that a lot of things i would have winced at near the end of 4e's life (Vancian casting, asymmetrical progression, 3.5 multiclassing, feat deficit, lack of choice on level up, no warlord, DM centric magic items) are more palatable to me than they once were. Now, there are a bunch of things i like about 5e- it's simpler, and there are fewer trap options (which is the only thing I really dislike about Splat, otherwise, i love having pretty much everything represented mechanically somewhere in the edition.) It uses basic essentials design to bridge some of the gap between 4e and prior editions, leaving us with options that feel like prior edition counterparts, but with that signature mechanical flair of "everyone is useful" that distinguishes 4e. Believe me I know, i'm reasonably active over at the /r/unearthedarcana sub-reddit, something that couldn't have been if the mechanics in 5e were as complex as 4e made them. All of that being said, reading these comments makes me sad- I love the knight's mark, and feel happy they're using the 4e design elements that my players and I love. It seems kind of aggressive to demand that it can't be a part of some splat sub-class that isn't even a part of the core PHB. I jumped on board with 5e because of the inclusive promise that it would represent a common foundation for all kinds of styles of play, so I'd be deeply disappointment if this didn't happen at some point. Even if it was Gamist, which i don't necessarily agree with, there are plenty of people whom do play DND for gamist reasons, and considering DND compares badly for narrativist design but tries it anyway, and compares badly to some things for simulationist design, but tries it anyway, I don't see why we can't take that fact and embrace it as being THE strength of DND as a tabletop game, that it compromises to get a wide range of players with different goals and sensibilities all at the same table having fun. It's probably one of the reasons for DND's popularity, White Wolf only really draws on the narrativist folks, Warhammer draws mainly on the gamist folks, and Pathfinder atm, probably gets the Simulationist players- as a continuation of the most simulationist edition of DND. Since 5e released, I think it's critical acclaim and popularity stem from the fact that it's accessible for all of these players- there are narrative elements, game elements, and simulation elements to get excited about, which in turn makes it easier to get more people to the table. It honestly does make me feel kinda like the point isn't a good faith disagreement with the mechanic as it's implemented in 5e, but as part of a crusade against 4e- like any traces of that oft-hated edition I love need to be dealt with on the basis of existing under the DND brand, even if they're easily avoidable elements, like a sub class released multiple years after the edition core book in an internet article that *maybe* gets published in an expansion of the game. Like if we were discussing this in a vacuum, I could imagine denying the idea as being something the designers clearly aren't interested in doing or isn't popular enough, but since we're talking about it after the designers (whom do quite a bit of market research with this edition) made it, that seems sort of disingenuous. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Unearthed Arcana Fighter: Samurai, Sharpshooter, Arcane Archer & Knight
Top