Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6555201" data-attributes="member: 6790260">In general, very much agreed. The vast majority of rituals basically serve as &quot;you can take a lot longer and spend resources to do something that, if you had a specialist, would be a simple check.&quot; A few of them are pretty good on their own, and some could be contextually super important...but presumably the ones that would be most game-changing could simply be avoided by the DM, since you can only get them as treasure.Not sure what 4e fans would feel that way--almost everyone I know that is real into 4e sees 5e as either a major step down, back, or sideways. There's little, if anything, I'd consider &quot;brokenly good.&quot; I think there are some frustratingly weak things, and design choices that I vehemently dislike, such as re-introducing hard complexity gaps between classes (no Fighter, even an Eldritch Knight, can ever be as complex as the simplest Cleric for example), but very little if anything is &quot;brokenly good.&quot; And much which IS that good is either sharply limited in some way or is so good mostly because of it being a recent jump in power (e.g. Moon Druid CR limitations), so it doesn't stay that good.5e is considered a successor/alternative to 3e for very good reasons. That is (pretty clearly) the edition it most closely resembles, mechanically speaking, but it's applied fixes to some of the known flaws. Lighter and softer fixes than those applied in 4e, and (IMO) not actually sufficient to solve those problems, but that the (attempted) fixes are there cannot be denied.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6555201, member: 6790260"] In general, very much agreed. The vast majority of rituals basically serve as "you can take a lot longer and spend resources to do something that, if you had a specialist, would be a simple check." A few of them are pretty good on their own, and some could be contextually super important...but presumably the ones that would be most game-changing could simply be avoided by the DM, since you can only get them as treasure. Not sure what 4e fans would feel that way--almost everyone I know that is real into 4e sees 5e as either a major step down, back, or sideways. There's little, if anything, I'd consider "brokenly good." I think there are some frustratingly [I]weak[/I] things, and design choices that I vehemently dislike, such as re-introducing hard complexity gaps between classes (no Fighter, even an Eldritch Knight, can ever be as complex as the [I]simplest[/I] Cleric for example), but very little if anything is "brokenly good." And much which IS that good is either sharply limited in some way or is so good mostly because of it being a recent jump in power (e.g. Moon Druid CR limitations), so it doesn't [I]stay[/I] that good. 5e is considered a successor/alternative to 3e for very good reasons. That is (pretty clearly) the edition it most closely resembles, mechanically speaking, but it's applied fixes to some of the known flaws. Lighter and softer fixes than those applied in 4e, and (IMO) not actually sufficient to solve those problems, but that the (attempted) fixes are there cannot be denied. [/QUOTE]

Verification