Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jessica" data-source="post: 6797503" data-attributes="member: 6796107">IMO what 5e got wrong:1) Nerfed in-combat options for a lot of classes. I enjoy playing classes that have a variety of in-combat options and don't often end up with one dominant strategy. In 4e, I made a character based on concept and felt I could enjoy pretty much any class because they all had a good range of options. In 5e, I'm kinda stuck to full casters minus a few of those casters who often end up with a dominant strategy anyways outside of certain subclasses or feat usage(e.g. Warlocks, Clerics, and Bards often doing either basic attacks or having that one cantrip that outshines all their other damaging cantrips assuming they even have more than one damaging cantrip).2) Making feats such a small part of the game. On top of that certain things I like in my characters(e.g. more than one damaging cantrip option, being able to cast with my hands full, being able to actually keep a target on me when I'm trying to play a Defender) often require feats which means no matter how much I want to play a certain race, I often just end up playing a Human so that I can play the character I want to play from early on instead of having to wait like 2 or 3 months or so after character creation to hit level 4.3) Bringing back VSM components. Ugh! I hate jazz hands and jibber jabber. What was wrong with details agnosticism in how powers happened? Couldn't they leave those rules out and then just EMPOWER the DM to make RULINGS on when a given spellcaster couldn't cast?4) The general trend towards simplifying and the resulting decrease in knobs to tweak when you are changing things around.5) The art. I think a lot of the art has taken a sharp decrease in quality imo. It's better than 1e art, but it's definitely worse than 4e art. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but the art in 5e just bugs me. Like maybe it's starting to get into that uncanny valley area between 2e and 4e where 4e had a more "cartoon-y" feel that I loved while 2e seemed to succeed when it was trying to be "realistic". 5e is just in some painful middle ground.6) The last one is probably more a community thing than an actual edition thing, but I feel like D&D has become more reactionary this edition. It's not so much about making new fantasy but rehashing old fantasy. I understand that getting old favorites is important, but both 3e and 4e introduced a lot of brand new things really early. 3e had the Sorcerer and put out a bunch of cool new ideas via prestige classes early on and with 4e you had Warlords, core Warlocks, and within about a year of release you had brand new classes in the form of the Avenger, Invoker, and Warden. 5e has been out for a year and a half and we got a book with some subclasses that were mostly stuff we've already had before. Oh well. I mean I guess in some ways 2e was pretty reactionary when compared to 1e. Maybe that means 6e will be crazy revolutionary when it comes out roughly when all the people who actually know what a Grey Mouser is are in retirement homes or in the ground.</blockquote>

Verification