Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 5997321" data-attributes="member: 17077">I really don't see the comparison. Pre-3.x editions of D&D were clumsy assemblages of rules and haphazardly thrown together mechanics. Everything was resolved differently from everything else. Attack rolls worked one way (remember THAC0?), rogue skills were percentile rolls, skills (nonweapon proficiencies) were d20 rolls, etc. There was no unified mechanic. It was a jumbled mess. Of course, that jumbled mess did have its charms. But I don't think there's any comparison to 5e. 5e uses the same basic unified d20 mechanic that has been a part of the game since 3e. There is no THAC0 or weird tables or random percentile rolls just for the heck of it. Everything is consistent and alot of thougth is clearly being put into the rules, even though it's far from finished.You can make an argument that 5e is harkening back to some of the viewpoints of older editions, such as DM empowerment. But that is more of a rules philosophy than a mechanical thing. But that kind of thing is really just a matter of personal taste. Some people prefer that approach and other people don't.5e may not be your cup of tea. That's fine. 4e wasn't really mine either, but I still admit it was a very well designed game. There's nothing wrong with liking 4e better than 5e, but let's be fair here. Saying that they're deliberately using poorly constructed rules because they think we don't know any better is going too far. I also think it's unfair to say that they're just redoing what older editions did. I've seen alot more innovation in this edition than I ever expected to.</blockquote>

Verification