Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6797727" data-attributes="member: 996">5e classes tend to have more option available than in prior eds.  Neo-Vancian casting combines the 3.5 Sorcerer's 'spontaneous casting,' with preparing daily from the class list (or known spells picked/gained from a class list).  That's a tremendous number of options available when you think about it.  The Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Fighter & Rogue all have access to that system's unprecedented flexibility.  Though the Warlock uses a different system, it still has a lot of choices compared to a 3.5 or 4e Warlock.  Arguably, the Monk and Barbarian have fewer combat choices than at their peak in 4e, but the Monk has more than in most other prior editions.  The Sorcerer might come out a little behind it's original 3.0 incarnation.  Of course, at the sub-class level, there are some real losers in terms of options, but just a few.You can always willfully decline the optimal strategy, if there are viable alternatives.  If you're 'stuck with full casters,' that still more than half the available sub-classes - Cleric & Wizard, alone, account for 15 sub-classes, plus 2 each for the Bard & Druid is 19, that's half, and/or if you credit the Sorcerer or Warlock with 'full caster' status, there's more.  That's a lot of potential PCs to explore.It just makes them optional.  As long as you & your DM are on the same page, that way, it shouldn't be that bad. Those first 3 levels go really fast.  One adventuring day each to reach 2nd, and 3rd at the standard exp budgets, only half-again as long to get to 4th.   As fast as 4e combats run, you could reach 4th in as few as 4 sessions if you manage to blow through a whole 'day' per session.The details can always be reskinned.Oh, it's definitely both, and it's no accident.  The Essentials 'Red Box' and 5e were both intentionally trying to tap the largest segment of D&D players - those who were no longer playing D&D, and hadn't since the late 80s or the 90s at the outside.  Essentials failed dramatically, but 5e, to all appearances, has succeeded.  Yes, it's retro - but it's the right kind of retro at the right time to move books.  It's shaping up to be a full-fledged come-back, possibly as dramatic as the OSR, maybe even bigger (OSR really appealed to hard-core old-school gamers, while 5e seems able to appeal to causal one-time players who tried D&D back in the day or played it more casually, or maybe even were just 'exposed' to it without actually jumping in at the time and wishing they had, who constitute a much larger potential audience).Yeah, we're old.  And we'll be playing D&D instead of bingo in those retirement homes.   And medical technology is improving all the time, so we're not going away anytime soon. ;P  Seriously, though, no, 2e wasn't reactionary, at all (there was nothing to react against) and had a long run that added a lot of detail ('bloat') and multiple new settings to the game.  It was very incremental and conservative, though.  5e will probably have a run at least as long as 2e's (10 yrs), if not 1e (13) or BECMI (15).  It could even turn out to be the last version of D&D and stay in print as long as Monopoly has - or until it's entirely replaced by MMOs or VR or holodeck LAPRing or whatever.</blockquote>

Verification