Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Eirikrautha" data-source="post: 6533351" data-attributes="member: 6777843">Actually, I don't.&nbsp; I am not allowed to have or express any opinion that might be construed in recognizing the differences between editions, unless said differences are used to praise the particular edition that some players prefer.&nbsp; Then I may recognize the non-existant differences, which exist now that we like them.&nbsp; At least until the differences aren't useful in proving how whatever edition the person I'm arguing with likes is better.&nbsp; In which case they go back to not existing.Putting earlier edition labels on 5e can NEVER expand play options.&nbsp; It only serves to restrict (cognitively) what players think they can do.&nbsp; In some editions (3e is a good example, and is one case where my initial statement is incorrect... 4e simply codifies what 3e did), such limits are also mechanical as well as mental.&nbsp; But not in 5e.&nbsp; Which is why I reacted so strongly.&nbsp; Because I don't want novice players to mental restrict themselves where not necessary.In fact, I just got done running my group through LMoP, all the way to 5th level.&nbsp; And our barbarian didn't kill a single monster the entire time.&nbsp; He moved in and raged, and took half-damage while giving the rest of the party advantage.&nbsp; Which the cleric used to slaughter everything in sight.&nbsp; And our rogue hung out on the fringes and took AoOs to keep all of the mooks in contact.&nbsp; So our barbarian was a &quot;defender&quot; or &quot;leader&quot;, our cleric was the &quot;striker&quot;, and our rogue the &quot;controller.&quot;&nbsp; Did they have to be?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Nothing in the game mechanics or in their &quot;builds&quot; required them to play that way.&nbsp; On occasion the roles would be switched.&nbsp; That's the strength of 5e.&nbsp; And why the concept of roles is invalid.&nbsp; There are only tactics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Eirikrautha, post: 6533351, member: 6777843"] Actually, I don't. I am not allowed to have or express any opinion that might be construed in recognizing the differences between editions, unless said differences are used to praise the particular edition that some players prefer. Then I may recognize the non-existant differences, which exist now that we like them. At least until the differences aren't useful in proving how whatever edition the person I'm arguing with likes is better. In which case they go back to not existing. Putting earlier edition labels on 5e can NEVER expand play options. It only serves to restrict (cognitively) what players think they can do. In some editions (3e is a good example, and is one case where my initial statement is incorrect... 4e simply codifies what 3e did), such limits are also mechanical as well as mental. But not in 5e. Which is why I reacted so strongly. Because I don't want novice players to mental restrict themselves where not necessary. In fact, I just got done running my group through LMoP, all the way to 5th level. And our barbarian didn't kill a single monster the entire time. He moved in and raged, and took half-damage while giving the rest of the party advantage. Which the cleric used to slaughter everything in sight. And our rogue hung out on the fringes and took AoOs to keep all of the mooks in contact. So our barbarian was a "defender" or "leader", our cleric was the "striker", and our rogue the "controller." Did they have to be? No. Nothing in the game mechanics or in their "builds" required them to play that way. On occasion the roles would be switched. That's the strength of 5e. And why the concept of roles is invalid. There are only tactics. [/QUOTE]

Verification