sometimes you almost get baited into a 5E discussion but then someone says something this outrageously untrue and saves you the trouble
characters are way less diverse than 3.5/PF but otoh combat isn't a broken mess decided solely by the initiative roll
like anything, it's a trade-off
it's objectively false that all 5E characters are within 15% of each other (take, say, a stock vanilla ranger build vs a hexblade/paladin and you can give the ranger 4 turns before the hexblade paladin acts and he'll still probably win the fight), but it's still true that 5E has way less character customization (too little, if you ask me)
do note the irony that many of the people that cry about 5E's uniformity are ad&d cultists - a system that makes 5E look like customization heaven with its extremely limited character options (most level ups in baldur's gate 1&2 will consist of you clicking the 'ok' button)
mostly, 5E takes are standard codex cult of the binary behaviour where things are either good or shit. in practice, the best way to summarize it is that 5E is way less fun to build characters in while actual combat often plays out better and more like an actual tactical game than 3.5 did
then again, as a purely tactical game system designed for a turn-based video game, 4E is probably the best of the D&Ds (in this regard only, obviously), and we never got a 4E vidya game
Last edited:
