Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="harmyn" data-source="post: 2845409" data-attributes="member: 13511">Or you could be wrong. In Rules Cyclopedia any character could use a weapon untrained at  a -2 to the skill roll. In 1st ed AD&D Magic-Users could use other weapons, but at a -5 penalty. Now in 3.5 the Wizard can snatch up a sword and use it at a -4 penalty. In the newest rules it is possible for a wizard to spend a feat and become proficient with a longsword or longbow, but it requires 1 of their general feats (of which they only get 7 over their 20 levels of advancement) and it will give them only that single weapon not a whole class of weapons. Hardly a good choice in the new rules, so while it is allowed, the rules are designed to discourage it.In the new rules wizards can cast spells in armor, with a chance of failure and a penalty to everything they are attempting unless they have again spent some of their feats on it. And even only having a 15% to 30% chance of failure is too big a risk for most characters to take that as an option.Am I saying the new rules aren't good? No, I'm not but the extreme codification is annoying at times. And its not as balanced as everyone believes. That is an illusion. And don't forget that in the RAW the CR of a 15th level commoner is a 14 and a 14th level Summoner Wizard Specialistis also a 14. Fighters can take Power Attack or Lightning Reflexes, gee which is really going to be more useful over the character's career. Clerics are overpowered to make people want to play them, while monks are underpowered for a front-line fighter but looks good in theory. A specialist evoker who takes Spell Mastery with their bonus feats can cast only 1 fewer spells than a sorcerer generally, but gets faster access to higher level spells.I actually do like the new rules, but they aren't perfect. Are they the best version of D&D? No, but then the best version is always the one you like the best personally. Much like what is the best movie or best food. And given the billion+1 choices now available lets face it folks, aren't most fighters brawny Power-Attacker/Cleave types, Archers, or 2 dual-wield specialists? Aren't most sorcerers walking mortar batteries blended with the magic missile machine gun effect? Barbarians as a rule are more typically portrayed to resemble Conan than Sitting Bull or Genghis Khan.You can use the modern rules to do some amazing things, and I have seen it done too. But its the players that ultimately make the difference much more than the rules. If you doubt it then I suggest you read a few of the *Help Me Build A Whatamahoosit*  threads to see the common patterns emerge.Now my beloved classic definitely had some major flaws of its own (halfling class anyone?) but it also offered many things to those who did a bit of digging. Skills that could act as both feats and specialized training that you could choose, Weapon Mastery (a truly great system that has yet to be equalled in any other incarnation of D&D IMHO), the proto-prestige classes of Paladin, Knight, Avenger, Druid, Hin Master, Merchant Prince, Sea Prince, and Shadow Elf-Shaman. Provided variants for Dwarf-Clerics, expanding a few halfling abilities, elf-Priests, Secret Crafts for magic-users, and clerical boons given by immortals to their priests. Variant classes included shamans, rakes, and foresters; and you could play humanoids if you wanted to under another optional supplement. And it was still rules lite enough that you could do some major tweaking and blending of abilities to create new and variant classes and come out just fine. Also it provided a well designed, but easy to use system for running PC land holdings (called dominions in those rules), had handy rules for running tournaments, and even provided a Mass Combat system that allowed you to quickly resolve battles and get back to the personal glory and adventure of the PCs (called the War Machine rules and expanded with the additions of the Siege Machine and the Sea Machine).Those old rules were flawed and had problems too. But they were fun and offered a great many more options than it is given credit for.But the real question is why was a thread started with the obvious purpose of creating a thinly disguised editions war?</blockquote>

Verification