Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6651926" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, but we are talking about published games and what they do and don't include, not the possibilities of homebrew. I mean we can talk about how good the homebrew might be in each system too, but 4e has skill challenges. 5e doesn't even mention the possibility. You could incorporate the morale rules from Chainmail too, that doesn't mean the game includes them and you can call it a plus. And we're still left with the point that has been hammered on, maybe too much, that the range, particularly for ability checks is VERY narrow in 5e. Even giving full consideration to Erechel and epic level RA that's only a maximum range of 8 pips on the d20. Yes, that means 40% greater success. However the issue is again more that the range is too limited to allow a lot of differentiation in terms of what is possible for different extremes of character. DaveDash's wizards breaking doors is really a weakness of the system. And yes, you can simply state that "5e lets the DM just make it up and ignore the check system" but that's again just Oberonni. Just because you can handwave your way past something that rules won't cover doesn't make it any less true that the rules don't cover that thing! I mean all basis for criticism and comparison of game systems entirely disappears the moment the answer is "rules don't matter." I don't really agree either that you can simply make some minor tweaks to 5e and get the sort of play that works well in 4e. Obviously at some level, if you strip away and rewrite enough of the game you can get there, but you'd have to restructure character progression somewhat, change around resource management significantly, write effectively all new versions of each class, and introduce several subsystems that were left out of 5e. At that point its not really even a 5e compatible game anymore, you should just play 4e! Obviously that's what we do, but that's the whole point of what at least I'm saying about 5e in terms of 'sucks'. It wouldn't really even address the stylistic issues either. I'd much rather have a rule that says something definite that I can ignore or change. When the author of a game says basically "I'm leaving big parts of this up to you" the message to me is they didn't finish their job. Just as you feel free to add to and change 5e, I feel perfectly comfortable making situational rulings in 4e to accommodate whatever circumstances the game doesn't detail (or ones I think they got wrong, though truthfully there's nothing much in that category).</blockquote>

Verification