Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6805576" data-attributes="member: 996">The highest praise I hear of 5e is usually along the lines of &quot;best edition since 2e&quot; or words to that effect invoking one of the other classic (pre-3.0) editions.&nbsp; It set out to evoke the feel of classic D&amp;D and succeeded, to great effect, since more people formed their impression of D&amp;D back when it was a fad, and during the remaining TSR years than since, and reviving that has been successful. But the sense of 'best' in that context, is primarily about familiarity and the nostalgia/enthusiasm of a fad having it's come-back.&nbsp; Are you sure you were paying attention to the playtest?&nbsp; Because I seem to remember a lot of complaints and controversy - and I did actually run playtest games, the system was pretty bad as a whole, through most of it, as it seemed they were 'testing' individual elements without fixing up things (like monsters) that they knew were off.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was only after we saw 5e that we appreciated how good some bits of the playtest had been (MDDs compared to CS dice, is one that stands our for me; the creative playtest Sorcerer vs the blah version they settled on is another). Actually, AD&amp;D stat requirements were to enter the class, at all, not just to MC to it.&nbsp; INT of 8, couldn't be a Wizard.&nbsp; CHA only 16, pick something other than Paladin.&nbsp; The happened to apply to multi-classing, but they weren't the major defining feature of it.&nbsp; The major defining feature of AD&amp;D multi-classing was Race.&nbsp; Your race dictated your available MC options.&nbsp; From there, it worked nothing like 5e MCing, at all.&nbsp; The MC system is one of the few things 5e took from modern editions and actually improved upon, a little.&nbsp; It also made it optional.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6805576, member: 996"] The highest praise I hear of 5e is usually along the lines of "best edition since 2e" or words to that effect invoking one of the other classic (pre-3.0) editions. It set out to evoke the feel of classic D&D and succeeded, to great effect, since more people formed their impression of D&D back when it was a fad, and during the remaining TSR years than since, and reviving that has been successful. But the sense of 'best' in that context, is primarily about familiarity and the nostalgia/enthusiasm of a fad having it's come-back. Are you sure you were paying attention to the playtest? Because I seem to remember a lot of complaints and controversy - and I did actually run playtest games, the system was pretty bad as a whole, through most of it, as it seemed they were 'testing' individual elements without fixing up things (like monsters) that they knew were off. It was only after we saw 5e that we appreciated how good some bits of the playtest had been (MDDs compared to CS dice, is one that stands our for me; the creative playtest Sorcerer vs the blah version they settled on is another). Actually, AD&D stat requirements were to enter the class, at all, not just to MC to it. INT of 8, couldn't be a Wizard. CHA only 16, pick something other than Paladin. The happened to apply to multi-classing, but they weren't the major defining feature of it. The major defining feature of AD&D multi-classing was Race. Your race dictated your available MC options. From there, it worked nothing like 5e MCing, at all. The MC system is one of the few things 5e took from modern editions and actually improved upon, a little. It also made it optional. [/QUOTE]

Verification