Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6650339" data-attributes="member: 996">It's possible to take the thread title ironically, and respond with things you like about 5e.  And it's not an 'edition war' thread, because it doesn't draw battle lines between any editions.  It's 5e that's the subject, not other editions.4e gets dragged into it, because even people trying not to seem compelled to make unwarranted criticism of it, even after it's untimely demise.  For instance:See, that's pretty harsh.  You just claimed 4e 'loudly' obliterated every prior edition.  Not remotely a true statement.  Many things from prior eds, especially 3.5, made it into 4e, and a few things from pre-3.x eds that had been absent made it /back/.  What's wrong with it?  It's true - the issue was always there, and 4e did neatly address it, because 4e PCs were uniquely capable and 'heroic' from 1st level on, via mechanics like surges, action points, second wind and powers, that monsters and NPCs lacked or had in fewer numbers and less variety.  4e PCs tended to stand out.  In other editions, they need some levels under their belt to differentiate themselves from the various NPCs with classes and NPC- or non- classed individuals who don't have the potential to rise in level.  They also need those levels to have a decent chance of survival.   In fact, you did.  You histrionically accused it of 'obliterating' all prior eds.  Not only a criticism, but a wildly exaggerated one. You're not wrong.  Spells are presented as push-button effects that the player could reasonably expect to work as described.  So, if a DM described the effects of a spell in a way entirely at odds with the spell description, a player might feel justified in confronting him about it, in a way he wouldn't when the DM described the effects of some other action not explicitly covered in the rules.But that's the only difference: how the player feels about it.  That's not insignificant, but the DM has as much right to call for a roll, or not, and describe the results as he see fits to rule them, whether the action described by a player is an improvised stunt or a spell.I doubt many DMs will go that far as a matter of course, and, IMX, players of spellcasters aren't adverse to the DM plunging into deeper descriptions and rationales for the functions of their spells, nor shy about improvising based on the possible implications of a spell description.Yes.  It makes being outnumbered significantly more telling.  A horde of 100 minions who hit for 5 points only on a 20 inflict about 25 DRP, crits don't even come into it.  A horde of 100 low-level creatures might hit for 5 points on a 17, and 10 on a 20.  Their DPR would be 125.  5e monsters have more hps than ever - but not quintuple the hps.In 5e, armies are prettymuch always dangerous, unless you have some magical protection against the damage they do, like a 'hit only by magic weapons' type defense, for instance.  That has a theoretical impact on the fiction - though not so much on play, since PCs rarely fight whole armies (though they may ask "why don't you just have your army slay the monsters?" and the DM should have a ready answer - the monsters hide in a cramped dungeon, they're immune to normal weapon, the have a huge fear aura, etc...)</blockquote>

Verification