Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6645019" data-attributes="member: 996">And finish up with Legendary Monarch, I suppose.&nbsp; Yes, among Race, Backgrounds, Themes, Class, Build, Alternate Class features, Feats (including MC feats), Hybrids, PPs &amp; EDs - and complete openness to re-fluffing - you could manage just about any imaginable character in 4e.&nbsp; Even things that had no business being in a traditional D&amp;D fantasy campaign - like John Steed &amp; Emma Peel investigating the Legacy of the Crystal Shard for the Harpers.&nbsp; &nbsp;Not as much as 3.x, since re-training was available every level.&nbsp; In 5e re-training (or even completely re-building) a character is the kind of thing the DM could just decide to give the nod to if it seemed like a good idea (or not if it didn't).&nbsp;You can always start at 3rd.&nbsp; By then, PCs are a bit less fragile and everyone has their sub-class.5e is less open to re-fluffing, but more open to outright changing things or making new ones from whole cloth.&nbsp; It suggests that the DM might add new Backgrounds, for instance.&nbsp;It's learned from some of the mistakes in it's 3.x incarnation.&nbsp; Mixing caster classes works much better, for instance.&nbsp; Proficiency is based on overall character level, making attacks, saves &amp; skills much simpler.&nbsp; The attempt at limiting front-loading and 'dips' was maybe a little inelegant, but at least partially successful.And the basic idea, as it was in 3e, is just wildly flexible.&nbsp; Conan could start as a Barbarian with Outlander background, choose Berserker, later gain levels in Rogue, then Fighter ... and, well, he'd be out of non-spellcasting options at that point, but you get the idea.&nbsp; Actually, he could do that in either 3.x or 5e.&nbsp; Ironically, in old-school attempts at Conan, he'd be given Fighter and Thief levels and arbitrary special abilities, resulting in something you could never do as PC.&nbsp; Even when Gygax ranted against the Schwarzenegger Conan movie, then created a Barbarian class just to do Conan, it didn't capture him that well.&nbsp; &nbsp;Yeah, I get that the nostalgia can wear thin quickly.&nbsp; I tend to have that reaction when I try to play 5e - but when I'm running it, I'm free to do more interesting things with it.&nbsp; I can reprise something old, if I want, but throw in a twist, or lampshade it - or, a tweak here, and a few rulings there, and it spins off in some other direction, entirely.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6645019, member: 996"] And finish up with Legendary Monarch, I suppose. Yes, among Race, Backgrounds, Themes, Class, Build, Alternate Class features, Feats (including MC feats), Hybrids, PPs & EDs - and complete openness to re-fluffing - you could manage just about any imaginable character in 4e. Even things that had no business being in a traditional D&D fantasy campaign - like John Steed & Emma Peel investigating the Legacy of the Crystal Shard for the Harpers. Not as much as 3.x, since re-training was available every level. In 5e re-training (or even completely re-building) a character is the kind of thing the DM could just decide to give the nod to if it seemed like a good idea (or not if it didn't). You can always start at 3rd. By then, PCs are a bit less fragile and everyone has their sub-class. 5e is less open to re-fluffing, but more open to outright changing things or making new ones from whole cloth. It suggests that the DM might add new Backgrounds, for instance. It's learned from some of the mistakes in it's 3.x incarnation. Mixing caster classes works much better, for instance. Proficiency is based on overall character level, making attacks, saves & skills much simpler. The attempt at limiting front-loading and 'dips' was maybe a little inelegant, but at least partially successful. And the basic idea, as it was in 3e, is just wildly flexible. Conan could start as a Barbarian with Outlander background, choose Berserker, later gain levels in Rogue, then Fighter ... and, well, he'd be out of non-spellcasting options at that point, but you get the idea. Actually, he could do that in either 3.x or 5e. Ironically, in old-school attempts at Conan, he'd be given Fighter and Thief levels and arbitrary special abilities, resulting in something you could never do as PC. Even when Gygax ranted against the Schwarzenegger Conan movie, then created a Barbarian class just to do Conan, it didn't capture him that well. Yeah, I get that the nostalgia can wear thin quickly. I tend to have that reaction when I try to play 5e - but when I'm running it, I'm free to do more interesting things with it. I can reprise something old, if I want, but throw in a twist, or lampshade it - or, a tweak here, and a few rulings there, and it spins off in some other direction, entirely. [/QUOTE]

Verification