Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7048428" data-attributes="member: 996">That's one reason it's a poor analogy.  Mr. Mearls came right out and said during the playtest that 5e was going to incorporate aspects of past editions, and be 'for' fans of all past editions.  So, if you have an analogy about an engineer working on the New Beetle, or something, that might work out a little better. Also makes for a poor analogy, since you were asserting that a desirable feature of a past version was impossible in a new version, which necessarily makes the new product inferior in that sense, while in your analogy, the contrasted designs were different products. While I in no way want to impersonate a professional game designer, let alone one with greater skills than those who're working on 5e, it does seem to me, ardent and long-time fan that I am, that "as much as can be fit into 5e" is a whole lot.  5e has a much loser structure than 4e did.  There's no Role cobby-holes.  Source isn't nailed down.  A Druid or Cleric could be a support caster one day, and a blaster the next, just by prepping different spells, nevermind choose a subclass, the Druid could, the same day, shape-change and hold the line.  In 4e, the Druid had to be chopped into 3 mutually-incompatible sub-classes (and, arguably, the Warden class broken out from it) to more than hint at all that without breaking the 4-'Role' structure.  In 5e, it's just all there.  (Now, I may be a tad biased, since I loved the 1e Druid, and had been disappointed to varying degrees by every subsequent version until 5e.) Now, speaking as a Warlord fan, I would hope to see not just "a more thorough Warlord class" comparable to that of 4e, but one that goes above & beyond that in area's where 4e's design philosophy limited it or otherwise failed to realize the full potential of the concept.</blockquote>

Verification