Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6646827" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Imaro, you seem to be working overtime here to frame this as an edition-war and put a few posters (myself included presumably) in the role of invective-throwing haters of 5e.&nbsp; If I've somehow been cast as someone that either (a) hates 5e or (b) has, is, or will do that, I'd like to know how that came to be.&nbsp; I've had commentary on noncombat action resolution (contrasting it with various systems and techniques) and a few other bits and bobs now and again.&nbsp; I've called it a cleaned-up, much more elegant, modernized, 3rd edition of AD&amp;D (with some storygaming influence and, a 3.x saving throw paradigm, and a la carte multiclassing).&nbsp; That is precisely how I see this ruleset.&nbsp; I said this toward the end of the playtest and people scoffed and then later many of the same people use the same classification as a term of endearment during their advocacy.&nbsp; That wasn't edition warring then and my evaluations now aren't edition warring.So can we just talk about the systems' play procedures for stunting and dissect what may come out of that?Contrary to your assertion directly above, I have actually read the 5e DMG.&nbsp; Before I go into a deeper post contrasting the two systems' handling of improv actions, let me make sure what you're referring to.&nbsp; I'm assuming you're referring to Chapter 5 Adventuring Environment; Traps page 121.&nbsp; This gives Save DCs and Attack Bonuses for Traps @ Setback, Dangerous, and Deadly Qualifications and gives (single target?&nbsp; AoE?&nbsp; Single-Use?&nbsp; Limited-Use?) damage expressions (using aggregate large dice; d10s)&nbsp; for for a broad spectrum of levels; 4, then 6, then 6 again, then 4 again.&nbsp; Then on 249, you have the damage expressions repeated again (without the DCs/Attack Bonuses) and 6 of the 12 expressions are handily tied to the fiction.&nbsp; I'll reply to your reply tomorrow evening (hopefully).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6646827, member: 6696971"] Imaro, you seem to be working overtime here to frame this as an edition-war and put a few posters (myself included presumably) in the role of invective-throwing haters of 5e. If I've somehow been cast as someone that either (a) hates 5e or (b) has, is, or will do that, I'd like to know how that came to be. I've had commentary on noncombat action resolution (contrasting it with various systems and techniques) and a few other bits and bobs now and again. I've called it a cleaned-up, much more elegant, modernized, 3rd edition of AD&D (with some storygaming influence and, a 3.x saving throw paradigm, and a la carte multiclassing). That is precisely how I see this ruleset. I said this toward the end of the playtest and people scoffed and then later many of the same people use the same classification as a term of endearment during their advocacy. That wasn't edition warring then and my evaluations now aren't edition warring. So can we just talk about the systems' play procedures for stunting and dissect what may come out of that? Contrary to your assertion directly above, I have actually read the 5e DMG. Before I go into a deeper post contrasting the two systems' handling of improv actions, let me make sure what you're referring to. I'm assuming you're referring to Chapter 5 Adventuring Environment; Traps page 121. This gives Save DCs and Attack Bonuses for Traps @ Setback, Dangerous, and Deadly Qualifications and gives (single target? AoE? Single-Use? Limited-Use?) damage expressions (using aggregate large dice; d10s) for for a broad spectrum of levels; 4, then 6, then 6 again, then 4 again. Then on 249, you have the damage expressions repeated again (without the DCs/Attack Bonuses) and 6 of the 12 expressions are handily tied to the fiction. I'll reply to your reply tomorrow evening (hopefully). [/QUOTE]

Verification