| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1ZardnaarApr 26, 2015 14:20:12 | On various forums 5E has been criticized as being to simple or to basic and the designers have openly admired OSR versions of D&D with Mike Mearls being known as a fan of 2E and he also posted house rules for BECMI D&D. For those of you who do not know OSR stands for Old School Revival or Old School Renaissance and the term generally applies to those versions of D&D before the WoTC buyout of 1997. For some of the hard core it refers to 1E AD&D, BECMI (Basic, Expert, Master, Companion, Immortals) and original D&D (OD&D) basically those D&Ds Gary Gygax had a major role or influence in their development.
Now why would D&D look back to the ancient past for inspiration? During the splintering of the player base in the aftermath of the edition wars the OSR movement picked up a lot of steam. It has always been there in the back ground but the revival seemed to have peaked in 2012 when Dungeon Crawl Classics a retro style game cracked the top 5 of ICV2s best seller lists. This movement is enabled by the OGL and the influx of players seemed to come from ex 3E and 4E players going backward to either older editions of D&D, retro games like DCC or outright clones such as Castles and Crusades.
WoTC picked up on this but the OSR movement is still dwarfed by Pathfinder for example in terms of size with estimates of the movement on ENworld perhaps indicating it was around 5% of the player base with 10% being generous. Generally gamers who like older D&D like it for the simplicity where a monster stat block may be a single sentence and a PCs stat block can fit on a single paragraph. The 1E PHB for example is barely half the size of 5E PHB and the BECMI rules Cyclopaedia is a PHB, DMG, and MM comes in at the size of a modern PHB and goes all the way to level 36. Technically 5E is the 7th major version of D&D, counting smaller versions it would be the 11th or 12th version of D&D.
This of course comes at the expense of options. OSR games may or may not have a skills equivalent, no feats, and in some cases 3-7 classes. The height of D&D’s commercial popularity however dates from this era where the largest selling D&D item of all time (the Red Box) only had 7 classes, 3 levels and a handful of monsters. By most accounts 5E has been a smash hit and its sales of the PHB have probably outsold 4E total run sales of the PHB probably have not out sold the PHB for 3.0. However I have found no estimates of sales of the starter set which has 4 races and classes, 5 levels and was stupidly cheap at $13 on Amazon. If one considers potential sales of that box I think it is plausible 5E has been one of the highest selling versions of D&D in recent decades.
So why does simple sell where more complex items do not? I would argue it has to do with the casual market. As a general rule the casual players of any type of game outnumber the hard core by a large margin. Using video games as an example think of Tetris on the old Nintendo Gameboy, sales of the Nintendo Wii vs PS3/Xbox 360 or game like Mine Craft or Farmville. Movies would be another example I would guess most of the people who saw The Avengers are not fans of the comics. 5E is not perfect IMHO but I think it is a good version of D&D was well with the best art overall D&D has ever had.
I think this is why 5E has gone backwards on some things. +4 and +5 weapons are gone, +3 was the standard in OD&D and BECMI. ACs are also a lot lower topping out at 25 (30/-10) in TSR era D&D. Magic items have gone back to the way they were in TSR era D&D with along with the way you can acquire them. You can no longer easily buy or manufacture them. I suspect this is for balance reasons. You can have powerful magic items a’la AD&D but when you add in the ability to combo them with feats, class abilities and can easily acquire them you are going to have problems a’la 3E and 4E. Modern gamers like feats and powerful class abilities which OSR games lacked and that’s why those games could get away with large amounts of magic items and mundane treasure in their adventures.1 million gp could not buy 20 +5 weapons.
As late as 1996 AD&D sourcebooks were explicitly saying you should not be able to buy magic items. This was thrown out in 3E and this enabled things like the 3.0 cleric archer and stacking spell DC modifiers into the 40’s or infinite in one PrCs case. The frostcheese combo was a very early 4E combo right in the core rules. After playing TSR era modules again for the 1st time in a decade in 2012 the main appeal of them was finding magic items that was fun again. 3E and 4E turned them into magical commodities which in effect turned it into D&D the Accounting. Some players like that of course and there is nothing wrong with it but it doesn't make the DMs life any easier.
And that’s why I think 5E gets complaints about DM empowerment. It makes the game less broken IMHO and there is a very simple reason for it. You need a game DMs will run. No DM is very simple. No DM equals no game for every DM you can get you probably pick up 4 or 5 players or more. The simpler the game the easier that process is. Once upon a time there were no frostcheese combos or no great weapon fighting +10 to damage or Bards granting +16 to hit and damage or +25 to hit and damage per shot cleric archers. An 18 strength and a +3 weapon gave you 1d8+6 damage and that was considered high damage. If you are struggling to find a game of D&D to play due to lack of DMs in your area and you prefer 3E or 4E there may be a reason for that. |
| #2TiaNadiezjaApr 26, 2015 15:46:27 | I'm running a very retro game in my 5e campaign. My playtest was moreso... but I've run In Search of Adventure, Keep on the Borderlands, Palace of the Silver Princess, Ravenloft, White Plume Mountain, and am now in Red Arrow, Black Shield. |
| (Reply to #2)arnwolf666 |
|
| #4SatyrnApr 26, 2015 17:20:49 |
|
| #5Storyteller-ZeroApr 26, 2015 17:49:40 |
|
| (Reply to #5)Jenks |
|
| (Reply to #6)CCS |
|
| #8ankiyavonApr 26, 2015 20:21:59 |
|
| #9SirAntoineApr 26, 2015 21:28:12 | I doubt it's as simple as complexity, or fewer rules. I wonder if it was the stereotype that D&D is for nerds that held back its sales long term. I think the original editions sold so well because they entered a market that hadn't been saturated with that yet. D&D came on the scene as a breath of fresh air. Later, anyone who considered getting in on it had the stereotype to consider.
The fact that Gary Gygax was forced out of the company also may had something to do with it. D&D was controlled by some folks who weren't gamers. |
| #10WuzzardApr 26, 2015 22:05:19 | The stereotype was alive and well when 1e ad&d came onto the scene. |
| #11SirAntoineApr 27, 2015 0:14:30 |
|
| (Reply to #8)arnwolf666 |
|
| #135ftApr 27, 2015 1:04:43 | First, 5E has “gone backwards on some things,” not because simple sells, whereas complex does not, but because WotC’s hoping to tap into people’s nostalgia for the way things were in the ‘80s and ‘90s, when the game was at its height. Their goal is, of course, to recoup players who either abandoned it entirely or who moved onto Pathfinder, frustrated by how recent editions of the game “felt” dissimilar to the ones with which they’d grown up.
Second, when people complain about DM empowerment, they’re actually complaining about a host of different things. I feel, for example, that it and its related concepts, like “rulings over rules,” are too often used as a shield to guard WotC from legitimate concerns over how the game’s poorly designed and does little to innovate on or improve an edition that’s almost three decades old.
And lastly, I’d argue that while empowering the DM might be a boon for those who are experienced with the game, it’s intimidating to those who are not. 5E is much more difficult to DM than 4E, precisely because its rules are left intentionally vague or ambiguous, and newer players are liable to just walk away from the game, if nobody in their group’s willing to step up and pretend system mastery where none exists. |
| #14SirAntoineApr 27, 2015 1:22:01 |
|
| (Reply to #8)CCS |
|
| #16JohnLynchApr 27, 2015 5:10:18 |
|
| #17ZardnaarApr 27, 2015 5:24:54 |
|
| #18DiffanApr 27, 2015 6:26:59 | If the designers have fooled the OSR people into believing it's a game stylized after them, they've hit a home run. I absolutely hate pre-WotC D&D. I hate the arbitrary level limits, different XP rates, Thac0, racial and alignment requirements, the art, the charts and tables for nearly everything, etc. but I do enjoy 5e to an extent. I don't think 5e has taken anything outside of smaller math and the sometimes painstakingly long character building from OSR but has taken a LOT from both 3e and 4E. So if the OSR crowed can rally behind 5e and also rope in 4e holdouts and convert some Pathfinder people, they'll do well. |
| (Reply to #15)Diffan |
|
| #20ChrisCarlsonApr 27, 2015 6:53:10 |
|
| (Reply to #18)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| (Reply to #8)Jenks |
|
| #23ChrisCarlsonApr 27, 2015 7:53:04 |
|
| (Reply to #8)Kazadvorn |
|
| #25EerongalApr 27, 2015 8:26:30 |
|
| (Reply to #23)Jenks |
|
| (Reply to #21)Diffan |
|
| #28Ralif_RedhammerApr 27, 2015 8:50:18 | For a long time, I was curious about Pathfinder. I’d go into the gaming store and think about picking it up. But every time I looked at the core rules, I just couldn’t bring myself to pick it up. In the end I realized I don’t want to play Pathfinder, I just want to use some of their products (like the Alchemy and Osirion sourcebooks) in my 5e game. They’ve got great production values and ideas, but the rules are just too finicky and bloated at this point for my tastes.
As for the increased influence of the OSR on 5e, I’m all for it. It's way easier to run the game. |
| #29GlimjackApr 27, 2015 9:21:20 | My biggest problem with "crunchy" rules sytems, is the speed of resolution.
Most game systems with lots of rules and sub-systems and modifiers drag each players turn out, so that what should be exciting and fast-paced becomes tedious. Players get bored between turns and start losing interest whilst waiting for their next turn. There is no tension or excitement.
Lightweight rule systems generally have faster action/combat resolution and more room for flair. This (for me) makes combat both faster and more fun (not to mention lending things a predisposition for cinematic action). The drawback is that everyone has to be on the same page in terms of rulings and bending the rules.
Some of the most fun I've had gaming has been creating characters using rules like Shadowrun, but when it comes time to play, the drama gets lost amongst attack rolls then defense rolls then damage rolls then soak rolls. I love Shadowrun, I just don't want to play it. |
| #30ArtifactApr 27, 2015 9:32:37 |
|
| (Reply to #30)Diffan |
|
| (Reply to #19)CCS |
|
| (Reply to #32)Jenks |
|
| #34menaklesApr 27, 2015 10:37:34 |
|
| (Reply to #31)CCS |
|
| #36AuticusApr 27, 2015 11:37:47 | I've played every edition. My favorite was AD&D 2nd. I played 3rd for eight years, played 4th for a couple, and did Pathfinder for a couple. 5th is something I am enjoying a lot.
The reason why I like "OSR" over modern "crunch" as both a player and as a DM/GM is that the crunch games in my experience often require looking up rules since there is often a rule for everything. Games would grind to a halt as we looked up a rule every so often. This of course could be mitigated if you had a person at the table who was good at memorization so some groups I played in or ran had this issue more than others. I'm not so good at memorizing rules, especially after having played multiple editions of the game (the same is true for me for games like warhammer where many editions have passed by and I cross rules and editions)
I don't like having to stop the game every so often to look up a rule. I think that 3rd and 4th and PF have their own merits but my preference is definitely a more open game where the DM makes rulings. That is why I prefer "OSR", AD&D, and 5th edition.
2nd - I feel that you cannot game the game as easily in AD&D and 5th ed as you can in 3rd or 4th or PF. 3rd, 4th, PF are games where system mastery is pushed with builds and knowing how rules interact with rules interact with other rules. That kind of thing is not desirable for me.
That doesn't make those things wrong, it just means I have more fun in an "OSR" environment both as a player and as a DM.
I think what we are seeing is that there are many people that play RPGs, and there are a multitude of playstyles and preferences and trying to lock down just one is not possible. I think I've had enough of crunch-dominated games and am happy 5th appeals more to what I wish was seen more, and today it is. |
| #37DiffanApr 27, 2015 11:39:49 | Because WotC has, for the most part, continued in spirit of many 4E-isms and I can easily get the 4E style with the 5th edition rules with just a few minor changes. And you are but 1 person AND you don't post in the 4E section of the forums. If there was an absurd abundance of anti-4E people IN the 4E section of the forums then perhaps you have a point. But since that hasn't happened and take into account the majority of people in the 5E forum don't resort to talking negatively about previous systems (aide from alignment requirements overall) then it hasn't dissuaded my desire to continue to purchase WotC products. |
| (Reply to #36)Diffan |
|
| #395ftApr 27, 2015 12:17:10 | I just don't understand how you can claim that 4e'd had a significant influence on the design of 5e. I've seen this claim before, when the playtest was in full swing, and, if anything, it makes less sense now than it did back then. (That's because, of course, the people making it were typically doing so in order to purge any and all trace of 4E from Next, and their efforts proved largely successful.)
I'm sorry, but virtually everything that made 4e what it was is now gone -- the tactical combat, the diversity of choices to make in leveling and building characters, the tiered advancement system, AEDU, nonmagical healing, etc. I guess the term "Hit Dice" still exists, but even that doesn't mean what it used to. |
| #40ChrisCarlsonApr 27, 2015 12:53:51 | You're not very convincing, "mysterious new guy". At all. I know far too much about 4e (having played it quite extensively, for years, since it's release) to fall for your lies. |
| #41OoftaMegApr 27, 2015 13:04:28 |
|
| (Reply to #40)5ft |
|
| #43ChrisCarlsonApr 27, 2015 13:10:52 |
|
| (Reply to #39)Diffan |
|
| (Reply to #41)5ft |
|
| #46UchawiApr 27, 2015 13:22:04 | If I had one complaint with 5E, it would not be the overall simplicity, but rather the mechanics 'nostalgia' where martial characters carry the simple banner (few class choices, majority of attacks against AC, versatility limited to ad-hoc actions and DM whimsy, etc.) and casters get all the complexity of choice through spells and versatile class design. I would be happy if the classes were treated equally accross the board, and then you could keep it simple or add complexity to all classes by increasing the choices that are available. |
| #47ChrisCarlsonApr 27, 2015 13:28:33 |
|
| (Reply to #45)OoftaMeg |
|
| (Reply to #47)Diffan |
|
| #50ChrisCarlsonApr 27, 2015 13:44:28 |
|
| (Reply to #48)Diffan |
|
| #52Farmer42Apr 27, 2015 14:11:27 | Trying to avoid that attack of opportunity, doncha know. |
| (Reply to #50)Diffan |
|
| #545ftApr 27, 2015 14:21:55 |
|
| (Reply to #48)5ft |
|
| #56ChrisCarlsonApr 27, 2015 14:31:25 |
|
| (Reply to #56)5ft |
|
| (Reply to #54)Diffan |
|
| #59ChrisCarlsonApr 27, 2015 14:43:19 |
|
| #60sandvirmApr 27, 2015 14:44:48 | I agree that there is a bit of 4e to be found in 5e, and so you can assume that I more or less agree with you on those points not included. However I think you are giving 4e too much credit in the design of 5e.
|
| #61SirAntoineApr 27, 2015 14:47:50 |
|
| #62Farmer42Apr 27, 2015 14:48:44 | 3.5 cantrips weren't at will. You actually ended up with more uses of 1st level spells per day, since you didn't get bonus cantrips. |
| #63SirAntoineApr 27, 2015 14:50:29 |
|
| #64ChrisCarlsonApr 27, 2015 14:56:09 | For some of you, who seem to be lost, here ya go. Enjoy! |
| #65SirAntoineApr 27, 2015 14:58:49 |
|
| (Reply to #62)sandvirm |
|
| #67ChrisCarlsonApr 27, 2015 15:11:24 |
|
| (Reply to #66)Farmer42 |
|
| (Reply to #58)5ft | I don’t know how to quote piecemeal, so please forgive the formatting:
“Considering that all of the classes had a multiple abilities that were based off of it, yes it was a large part of the experience especially when in 3E it was mostly x/day or all the time. To have a mode of measurement that breached the two was innovative. Not to mention that no other class in 3E had non-magical healing like 4E's Warlord.”
The reason that 4E had a “mode of measurement that breached the two” was, as you say, because it’d implemented AEDU across the board. So, 5E removes AEDU but keeps the short rest, despite the fact that resource management’s gone back to “mostly x/day or all the time.” That’s a case of throwing out the baby but keeping the bathwater, as far as I’m concerned.
“And the amount of flak the Warlock got was ridiculous. 3E started it but 4E was the edition that implemented it to it's fullest extent. And I'm talking about at-will magic in which case 4E only had a cleric, paladin, warlock, and wizard that utilized it. Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, and Warlord weren't magical at all. The fact that the Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Druid all got it for free and anyone can grab it with a feat is something that should be attributed to 4E.”
4E gave everyone at-will powers, and it didn’t mechanically distinguish between those that were magical and those that were mundane. The fact that you force the distinction is a residue of older editions.
“Funny thing, Pathfinder didn't continue the trend and I wonder why that is? The fact is there's not "logical" progression to it considering it was on the table during the playtest. It was the first time ever in D&D's PHB that Alignment wasn't used as a forced role-play element in D&D's history. While there are non-LG Paladins in previous editions, none have ever graced the PHB until 4E and now 5E. I think it's a trend that really can only be attributed to 4E's design. Not to mention the removal of all alignment-based mechanics such as spells and features like Smite.”
Pathfinder didn’t continue the trend, because they were making a clone of 3.X under the auspices of the OGL. They weren’t even pretending to innovate, nor could they. And again, as you note, non-LG paladins, for example, existed in earlier editions of the game. I don’t see why it’s important whether or not they were included in the PHB, specifically. Bards and druids aren’t included in the 4E PHB, but I wouldn’t be so bold as to say they’re not core classes.
“No, I'm implying that spell effects in 5E, obtained at 1st level, are considerably higher (but taper off as caster level increases) than that of pre-4E's time. I didn't mention anything about clases power at all.”
I pretty much agree with what Sandvirm said above.
“1) that's not what bloat means. 2) BAB had a 3 tiered system, which, when you bring multiclassing into it became an even bigger mess. Looking at the system, a 20th level Wizard is attacking twice with a +10/+5 and a 20th level Fighter is attacking with a +20/+15/+10/+5. Compare this to 4E where both are attacking with +15 and 5E where both are attacking with a +6. Since 4E, the numbers have scaled down AND both classes are on the same attack bonus. The difference is astounding.”
1) People have definitely referred to 4E’s stacking bonuses as “number bloat.” 2) Again, I pretty much agree with what Sandvirm said above.
“Actually anyone can get these maneuvers with the cost of 1 feat. Anyone can do what the Battle Master does, quite easily. And I think that had the Bo9S or 4E been created, it would never have happened in the game at all.”
In 4E, fighters didn’t have to spec a certain way in order to pick up a system of resource management. Nobody did. I’ll grant you that the inclusion of the Battle Master is a nod to the 4E fighter, but it’s a rather slight nod, and its implementation’s exceedingly wonky. A Champion doesn’t need “Disarming Strike” to try and disarm someone, and disarm’s been a combat maneuver since at least the 2E Fighter’s Handbook. |
| (Reply to #67)5ft |
|
| (Reply to #55)OoftaMeg |
|
| #72ZardnaarApr 27, 2015 17:58:33 |
|
| (Reply to #71)5ft |
|
| (Reply to #72)Farmer42 |
|
| #75ZardnaarApr 27, 2015 19:02:54 |
|
| (Reply to #69)Diffan |
|
| (Reply to #60)Diffan |
|
| #785ftApr 28, 2015 1:29:02 |
|
| (Reply to #77)sandvirm |
|
| (Reply to #78)Diffan |
|
| (Reply to #79)Diffan |
|
| (Reply to #80)5ft |
|
| #83OrethalionApr 28, 2015 9:30:06 |
|
| #84FinieousApr 28, 2015 9:36:27 | So anyway, in my view, Gygaxian D&D was first-and-foremost a game of exploration. The players (sometimes a dozen or more, perhaps led by one "caller") formed expeditions, complete with specialized equipment requirements, henchmen and hirelings. The DM's job (as the name suggests) was to prepare the environment to be explored and referee the players' exploration of it. The purpose and the play experience was exploration. Monsters were obstacles to be encountered and overcome as the exploration continued; combat was not the primary or core play experience.
The rules of 5e support that style of play pretty well. Actually, if you look at the 5e Basic Rules, it's not much more complex than B/X (or a B/X retroclone like Basic Fantasy), and in many cases it's a lot more intuitive. "Rulings, not rules" is an important design philosophy for a game based on exploration, because you're never going to have tight rules to govern even a fraction of the situations that arise in play, when PCs interact with the environment in unexpected ways. The players are encouraged to do literally whatever they can imagine, and there won't be rules to cover most of it.
Contrast, for example, with a game that focuses on tactical combat -- there, the focus may be sufficiently narrow to permit rigorous and comprehensive rules design. On the other hand, a game with that more narrow focus and tight design might fight you to some extent when you try to play it as an exploration game rather than a tactical combat game. It might fight you in the way the DM prepares and plans the environment, in trying to present monsters as obstacles rather than center pieces, in the amount of game time demanded by combat as opposed to exploration, etc.
So if 5e has a more "old school" feel or is more palatable to old-school players, this may have something to do with it. The rules support and mostly don't interfere with exploration as the purpose and experience of play. That said, it's hardly dedicated to that style of play. For example, none of the adventure support caters to location-based, exploration style play. More's the pity, in my opinion, but there it is. |
| #85EerongalApr 28, 2015 9:58:57 |
|
| #86PolarisApr 28, 2015 10:02:26 |
|
| #87EerongalApr 28, 2015 10:06:42 |
|
| (Reply to #87)sandvirm |
|
| #89Brock_LandersApr 28, 2015 11:06:10 | They stated that the ToB/Bo9S and SWSE were snapshots into 4th Ed design at the time.
Nice list, Diffan, on 4th Ed's influence on 5th Ed, also, save ends! |
| #90RastapopoulosApr 28, 2015 11:08:43 |
|
| (Reply to #89)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #92Brock_LandersApr 28, 2015 11:54:06 |
|
| (Reply to #90)5ft |
|
| (Reply to #82)Diffan |
|
| (Reply to #89)Diffan |
|
| #96PolarisApr 28, 2015 13:58:34 |
|
| (Reply to #94)Farmer42 |
|
| #98PolarisApr 28, 2015 14:21:49 |
|
| #99ZardnaarApr 28, 2015 14:32:49 | People thought the 1d6/2 levels at will was over powered for the Warlock. Turned out it was not as they kept on comparing the warlock to a wizard when they should have compared it to an archer.
|
| #100cassi_brazucaApr 28, 2015 14:32:56 | Wasn’t Warlock part of the tier 3 classes? Wasn’t at-will magic criticized not for the specific implementation but for the concept of endless magic itself? Because you’re telling me the Warlock was criticized for the at-will casting, but, as far as my experience goes, nowadays they are considered quite a “balanced” class (considering the PHB casters as broken as possible).
Just double-checking. |
| #101PolarisApr 28, 2015 14:58:25 |
|
| #102ZardnaarApr 28, 2015 15:46:30 |
|
| #103SirAntoineApr 28, 2015 17:10:16 |
|
| (Reply to #101)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #105JohnLynchApr 29, 2015 0:37:14 | You can sit here and debate how many features from 4th ed made it into 5th edition, but if we use the Mike Mearles "Does it feel like 4th edition" then all of that is irrelevant. When I play 5th edition it doesn't feel the same as when I'm playing 4th edition. It feels like a cleaned up 3.5e/Pathfinder with a couple of 4th edition features slotted in. If you play 5th edition and it feels like 4th edition for you, that's great. But it clearly doesn't for 5 ft, so it's largely irrelevant in the discussion of how the game feels for him.
Also I didn't see these get mentioned, but they're definitely 4th ed-isms: Rituals, Death Saving Throws, Advantage. |
| #106DiffanApr 29, 2015 1:13:42 | I think 5th edition feels like 5th edition, more so than any other edition. Does it have elements from others? Definitely but the vibe is distinctly different than anything that has come before. I recognize certain elements of specific stuff, which is cool. The game plays like D&D, just as every edition prior to it. |
| #1075ftApr 29, 2015 4:19:02 | We can go through and compile lists of which features came from which of the game’s previous editions, but if we do so, it’s important to assign the proper weight to each entry.
Let’s assume, for sake of argument, that at-will spells had in fact first appeared during 4E. Sure, we’d be right in adding them to 4E’s column, but this doesn’t tell us much about how and to what degree they helped shape the game.
In 4E, technically speaking, “at-will spells” didn’t even exist. They were called “at-will abilities,” and they were possessed by each and every class, regardless of power source. As Polaris noted, they were class-defining, and they fundamentally changed not only how you went about playing a given class but how you went about playing the game. The warrior, for example, no longer made X attacks per round but chose to use one of her daily, encounter or at-will powers, and the latter carried riders which rendered them something other than MBAs. What we’d traditionally known as the spellcasting classes operated in exactly the same way.
While it may be true, at least given the provisions we’ve made, that 5E retained 4E’s “at-will spells,” it’s not also necessarily true that 5E’s a lot like 4E for having done so. Yes, we can keep adding entries, like at-wills, under the 4E column, but how they function now’s considerably different than how they functioned back then. |
| (Reply to #107)Diffan |
|
| #109ShasarakApr 29, 2015 12:39:43 |
|
| #110DaomSlayerApr 30, 2015 8:54:01 |
|
| #111DaomSlayerApr 30, 2015 9:06:29 |
|
| #112DaomSlayerApr 30, 2015 15:01:57 |
|
| #113ORC_CricketApr 30, 2015 22:40:32 | We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone. |
| #114Brock_LandersApr 30, 2015 23:12:52 |
|