Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
Owlcat took that to even further extremes with their two Pathfinder games as well, way too much buff slathering just to keep up with the stat curve imo, even on normal.
I'm also glad that Berserkers aren't a meme subclass in BG3, and Wildheart actually has some more interesting choices than Bear 95% of the time with a side of Wolf every once in a great while.
One of the main criticisms of 5e is that martial characters have astonishingly little to do to flex their martial prowess in combat beyond making more normal weapon attacks with a small handful of exceptions (rogues, Open Hand Monks, Battlemaster Fighters), and a lot of the changes and additions have been centered around expanding that.
Even the specialized weapon feats like GWM and PAM don't really give you inherently more interesting or varied things to do. They just let you swing your weapon more often for more damage using the exact same properties as every other attack you're already making.
Most primary spellcasters certainly aren't going to get much use out of the extra weapon abilities or being able to throw enemies and objects around. They already have spellcasting for that, the #1 most bloated and versatile feature in the entire game.
As far as video game goes there are advantages to both systems i guess. 3.5 would be more engaging since it requires you to actually make functioning builds in order to be able to hit anything. However it also promotes playing strong builds over just playing whatever the hell you want. Even tho its more engaging in terms of creating a functioning build its also limiting in a way.
5e on the other hand is a lot more flex when it comes to builds and what you wanna play simply because, well, it is a lot simpler and has simpler systems. This means you can probably play whatever the heck you want and it will work for the most part. However this also limits your interaction with level ups and makes it a lot simpler aswell. Figts become a lot simpler due to removel of certain actions and systems.
So again, both systems have their drawbacks and advantages. Sadly i cannot judge before the game fully launches and i can finally play it.
I loved playing PF 1e in WotR. However one problem i had with that system is it punishes you heavily for building "unoptimized". DnD 5e doesn't have this problem for the most part since there is not much to build "unoptimized".
Just seems pointlessly stupid. Just use the setting and make your own damn game like Warhammer games do.
Yeah that is why it is not as popular or more widely played as 3.5/pathfinder... Oh wait it is the other way around.
Why would we want that? 5e is better.
Sturgeon's law applies also to your average consumer.
How about no?
Sure, you can dislike 5e as much as you want and I respect your dislike of it, but it dosn't mean it's objectively bad just because you don't like it. I'd certiatnly take it over the complete mess that is 3.5.
If I don't have authority to decide what is or what isn't, then neither do you, nor anyone in this thread, nor anyone alive on this planet. For all we have here, and all we can ever have here, are our opinions on this very subjective matter of preference.
Accepting that the majority of people like things you personally think are crap is okay. I think Gamne of Thrones is arsewater personally. Yet it's popular because people like it, last season's stupidity aside.
Alas, let us agree to disagree.
I agree, but also I can't help to think that you misunderstood what I meant. Allow me to clarify.
90% of everything is ♥♥♥♥ applies to humanity. 90% of humans have ♥♥♥♥ taste. Thus most mainstream and popular things are, unsurprisingly, ♥♥♥♥, as they pander to lowest common denominator.
Complex system require time and effort to learn and master. Simple systems are therefore more appealing as average consumer, especially in modern times of adhd and tictoc, craves instant gratification.