MechaPilot
Explorer
Alot more conversion work and Basic has that gritty feeling that 5E lacks. You can outright port the 2E psion rules to Basic, can't do that in 5E.
The 2e psionics rules are my favorite D&D psionics rules.
Alot more conversion work and Basic has that gritty feeling that 5E lacks. You can outright port the 2E psion rules to Basic, can't do that in 5E.
Also, skills and feats: their mere existence in the rules enables "builds" and optimization. In editions where they don't exist, everybody can do (or at least attempt to do) everything.
Ultimately, people tend to stick with the editions they already play, and don't change to a later edition unless it offers something new that they see as being worth leaving the edition they already play, have books for, know the rules for ect.
People left 1e for 2e because 2e incorporated a lot of various optional rules that had become popular into the core rules, and included support for taking all character classes up to at least 20th level (in 1e, some classes such as Monks and Assassins reached max level before 20).
People left 2e for 3e because 3e provided a consistent, unified rule system and a LOT more flexibility than 1e or 2e in characters, monsters, ect.
Well, I can't say why people left 3e for 4e, because I didn't and none of the people I gamed with did, they all rejected 4e en masse. Presumably it provided something to someone though.
At it's core 4e was much simpler than 3e. It was basically a simplified form of 3.X rules. However, each class then added it's powers which, for some, made it seem far more complex (and with all the powers it COULD be more complex).
There were some that enjoyed the more tactical nature of combat that 4e offered. In many ways it provided a more solidified form of grid play than 3.5 or even some boardgames like Descent, while offering the opportunity for roleplay.
Others preferred how it made skills far more simpler to handle (+5 if trained), and monsters were far easier to throw into the mix or create on the fly than they were for 3.5 for many people.
Others preferred how simple many of the skills worked and thus how roleplay in general was far more open and less restrictive than the skills and feat system of 3.5 and how it handled such things.
Some felt that 4e was far more balanced, and in many ways there was no spellcaster vs. martial imbalance (like many claim there was/is for 3.5 or Pathfinder).
Once again, there is no set answer, there were probably as many different reasons as there were groups (or even individuals) who played 4e.
In many ways, 4e was a direct precursor to 5e, if you take away the powers system and instead replace it with class based abilities that are more solidly applied. It had the first precursor of Bounded accuracy (though it went to +15 rather than +6 for combat and saves, skills were still at +5 across the board) there are a lot of similarities between the two. 5e has many elements taken from 4e, but less emphasis on grid and miniatures in combat.
Part of what made some people get a sour taste about 4e was the marketing of it, but in many ways, 5e is probably closer to the basic core idea of 4e than most of the other versions of D&D that came before it. This probably was another reason some jumped onto the 4e rules and later on were eager (those who did do this, as not all did this) to jump headfirst into 5e.
At it's core 4e was much simpler than 3e. It was basically a simplified form of 3.X rules. However, each class then added it's powers which, for some, made it seem far more complex (and with all the powers it COULD be more complex).
There were some that enjoyed the more tactical nature of combat that 4e offered. In many ways it provided a more solidified form of grid play than 3.5 or even some boardgames like Descent, while offering the opportunity for roleplay.
Others preferred how it made skills far more simpler to handle (+5 if trained), and monsters were far easier to throw into the mix or create on the fly than they were for 3.5 for many people.
Others preferred how simple many of the skills worked and thus how roleplay in general was far more open and less restrictive than the skills and feat system of 3.5 and how it handled such things.
Some felt that 4e was far more balanced, and in many ways there was no spellcaster vs. martial imbalance (like many claim there was/is for 3.5 or Pathfinder).
Once again, there is no set answer, there were probably as many different reasons as there were groups (or even individuals) who played 4e.
In many ways, 4e was a direct precursor to 5e, if you take away the powers system and instead replace it with class based abilities that are more solidly applied. It had the first precursor of Bounded accuracy (though it went to +15 rather than +6 for combat and saves, skills were still at +5 across the board) there are a lot of similarities between the two. 5e has many elements taken from 4e, but less emphasis on grid and miniatures in combat.
Part of what made some people get a sour taste about 4e was the marketing of it, but in many ways, 5e is probably closer to the basic core idea of 4e than most of the other versions of D&D that came before it. This probably was another reason some jumped onto the 4e rules and later on were eager (those who did do this, as not all did this) to jump headfirst into 5e.
But the scale of most powers was such that it returned the game to a tighter frame, where you seldom had to deal with anything that would be "off the battle mat". In 3rd edition, a longbow's range could allow a character to shoot over three hundred feet, which if plotted out at five feet per one inch square, was five feet on the board, which was well beyond the size of the board. Spells like Fireball started at 900 feet (400 + 100 per caster level), which would require a table top over 15 feet long.
So yes, we play earlier editions because they are superior, at least for us.
This is why 5e reversed itself and went back to trying to be all things to all people, rather than trying to be the perfect game for some. I wouldn't be surprised if 5e is, even for people who aren't playing it, almost everyone's second favorite edition.
Bounded Accuracy is more from B/X or BECMI. ACs top out around 30 for the most part, level 20 fighter +13 to hit, only goes up to +3 weapons etc. The numbers are not that far off 5E.