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: 7049328" data-attributes="member: 996">'Homogeneity' was, as you know, an edition wa-- PSYCH!  you were just going to delete the rest of my post again and rant about that, weren't you?  C'mon, admit it!  OK, seriously:   4e classes weren't 'homogeneous' (they'd've had to have been /identical/ for that to have been true), rather, 4e had a very consistent class structure and very neatly balanced classes......sorted into 4 boxes called 'Roles' and whittled down or chopped up as needed to fit in said boxes. Now, the consistent class structure ship sailed with the first round of the playtest (if not before), and has glided over the horizon, been burned to the waterline, scuttled, and dragged to the bottom of a deep-ocean trench by a spiteful Kraken (not the kind that advertises run, those are nice Krakens, maybe the one from the 80s Clash of the Titans movie, with jointed arms).  The search parties have sailed forth, scoured the 7 seas and found no trace.  The widows have grieved and re-married, and the insurance has been paid out.  So, 5e has virtually unstructured classes - they all have 20 levels, they all get one HD per level, and that's about it.  Everything else is design space writers can do whatever they want with when penning a new class.  That's not going to change. And it does leave endless possibilities wide open.  They needed that kind of design flexibility to capture the feel of all those different editions.The 'best' they could do for someone with an AEDU fetish would be to create a martial, divine, primal, & psionic class each structured like (and neatly balanced with) the Warlock, and let people who reeeeallly want the technical 'feel' of that run campaigns with just those 4 classes ("eugh! I can't stand the chaos of all those heterogenous classes!" "Don't like 'em?  Don't use 'em!")  Heck, if the Warlock-like-advancement martial class was a Warlord, I'd put up with a DM who wanted to do that.  ;P  (Hey, if they start with the Warlock and Warlord, they could all be 'war' classes. Yeah.  a Warden and a Warpriest and a, uh, Warmind.  Sure.)(Wait, wasn't structuring new classes something like the Warlock what mellored was alluding to?  Or was he suggesting that in the context of re-designing all classes, and recalling the existing books and sending WotC ninjas to change everyone's character sheets to conform?) 5e feels a lot like AD&D to me.  I loved 1e, and I would go out and play it once in a blue moon when I had the chance (which was really rare, 2e popped up at the local con more often).  So I'm pretty happy to run 5e and get my 1e paleogaming fix off it rather than try to dragoon players into a 1e game and convince them weapon v armor type is cool.   I get to run without feats or MCing, too, so none of that 3.5 charop craziness... sometimes run with just the Big 4, I feel like that makes a fine intro game.  I've heard a lot of folks say they get a 2e vibe from 5e, too, and really enjoy that.  So some of us are being served the D&D we want (to varying degrees), in the form of 5e options, just like we were told we'd get.  And some of us aren't, and are not wrong to be asking for their turn.(And me, I'm just overflowing with ambivalence, since I'm getting what I want as a DM, but not as a player, so I don't just /see/ both sides of that issue...) In 3e they got to shoot Light Crossbows.  Yeah.  And we were glad we had 'em, too.  We were thankful for that simple weapon proficiency after years of only being able to figure out 3 weapons...</blockquote>

Verification