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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6936378" data-attributes="member: 996">That 5e's got room for some more player options, and, in particular, that coming through with some conspicuously 'missing' compared to certain past editions would help 5e reach its professed goals and make it a better, more inclusive, iteration of D&D.As the title of this thread points out, recognizing that there were characters you could have played from various past PH1s that 5e can't manage yet, is not the same as insisting that it drown itself in bloat trying to ape every obscure, redundant, or broken mechanic ever to appear in between the covers of a D&D book.  Sub-class seem the most critical decision point in 5e, IMHO.  Between PH & SCAG, there's what, 40-50?  But I see nothing wrong with bringing race and background into it, they're also quite character-defining.The comparison to 3e would be very difficult, because 3e character options shook out into complicated 'builds,' theoretically, countless thousands of them, but only a fraction were arguably viable.2e class groups, classes, & kits, though could be cogently compared to 5e classes, sub-classes & backgrounds, though, for instance, and I'm sure 5e comes out ahead if you just do the sane thing and adjust for pace of release:  PH + SCAG vs PH+(whatever splat hit first, CPH?)But 2+ years in, comparing 5e to 3e or 4e (or even 2e)?  Not a fair comparison at all, not with the differing paces of publication.</blockquote>

Verification