I can't decide between D&D 4th and 5th edition for my upcoming campaign for fairly new people

Sorcerer works just fine in 4e as long as there isn't a wizard in the party to do everything you can do only better

>4e
I meant 5e, whoops

Well, 4e does have Essentials classes which sorta drop off, they are about as trappy as Wot4E or the Ranger.

>Ranger
Ranger was fixed, and it's fix is even Adventurers League legal.
>Sorcerer
Sorcerer is a fullcaster, I think he's fine.

I originally played a phb ranger and he did feel really weak, but switched him up to revised ranger and now he gets shit done.

Sorceror has some areas they are worse than wizards, but others where they are better. It's not as unviable as you're making out

Do you want to play D&D or a Superhero Miniature game?

>Sorceror has some areas they are worse than wizards, but others where they are better.

Unless it's "making CHA skill rolls" or "multiclassing with Warlock"... just nope.

Knows less spells (from a worse list). Can cast less spells. Has worse class abilities.

It's worse in ever way.

OP was asking about 4e vs 5e, not WotC editions vs OD&D.

Only if you mix Essentials and Original 4e, if everybody does Essentials it's sort of ok, but you'll have to accept the boring at wil spam.
You need a good bit of mastery to mix them... I guess you're right, you could say the same of the Monk.
If everybody is W4E Monk, it's ok (and no enemy gets actions, like, ever).

5E is better for newbies in almost every single way.

>Only if you mix Essentials and Original 4e, if everybody does Essentials it's sort of ok, but you'll have to accept the boring at wil spam.

Not even, Mearls could not resist sucking Wizard cock in even in essentials. All the Wizard variants are just as good (situationally better) than the non-essentials versions of the classes.

But if you restrict yourself to simple classes... I guess that can work out.

>4th looks like it has more options for everyone across the board
You get to choose toppings for your shit sundae. Hooray.

What are some of the most common houserules for 4e?

4rh Edition is generally more boring. The simplicity of 5e makes it great for 99% of groups.

MM3/Monster Vault math fixes monsters and make fights shorter and more interesting.

Everyone gets an Expertise feat and Improved Defences for free, to fix the system math issues.

Some free feats to alleviate the need for taking tax feats, usually an expertise feat, improved defenses, and some other, class specific stuff (unerrata'd melee training) handed out as you level.

Take care to only use MM3 and up monsters, or at least use the monster math for it.

Optionally:
- using inherent bonuses.
- some houserules to boost paragon multiclassing.
- improving the scaling a bit on improvised actions.

>If they're retards it doesn't matter the system
5e is also for retards user. It's hard to tell your different when you only hang around retards, but trust me, it's true

Thanks a lot!

Play the only good edition, 3.5

>HEY IF YOU ARE MAKING RULES CHANGES TO FIX SHIT THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN BEYOND REPAIR AND IS BADWRONGFUN
I will never get over the stupid levels of hypocrisy 4e players show.

You may also find these useful:

Useful resources: pastebin.com/85Hm56k5
Online compendium: funin.space/

>Errata is the same thing as homebrew.
I don't think you know what words mean.

Because handing out 2-3 free feats and using the later monster math is certainly comparable to the huge amount of shit you'd need to do to a certain other edition, who doesn't even have a generally agreed on simple set of house rules to fix it.

The houserules I've seen used for 4e are.

1. Everyone gets versatile expertise for free (Every 4e DM I've played with who uses houserules uses this one)
2. Everyone gets weapon/implement focus for free
3. Everyone gets improved defenses for free
4. Everyone gets pre-errata melee training for free
4-1. Melee training always comes in it's pre-errata form
5. Essentials and O-4e classes can both be used, but no using essentials-class powers on their O-class counterparts

I've never seen 2 and 3 used at the same time however

And here you show your complete lack of understanding of the argument.

The point you're misquoting is generally brought up to counter people who claim that their preferred system is perfect because its flaws may be fixed- Acting like the ability to ignore or work around a flaw causes said flaw to cease to exist or have any significance.

4e is a flawed game. We are implicitly acknowledging this by suggesting the fixes, and in pretty much every 4e thread I've seen people very happily and openly discuss said flaws. That there are common fixes does not stop the flaws existing, and 4e would be a better game if these flaws did not exist.

But a game being mechanically flawed does not inherently make it unplayable. That depends on the degree of flaw present, which requires an honest assessment of how badly the mechanics negatively effect the experience of the system RAW, as well as how easy they are to fix.

>who doesn't even have a generally agreed on simple set of house rules to fix it.

There are two "general" houserules to fix 3.5 as far as I know (that aren't "play 4e/5e instead"): Select a Tier to play in and have everyone agree to stay within 1 step of that tier, or, as a subset of above, ban core classes and only allow ToB, psionics and a few other select stuff.

>Select a Tier to play in and have everyone agree to stay within 1 step of that tier, or, as a subset of above, ban core classes and only allow ToB, psionics and a few other select stuff.
And this is the problem. Your fix is literally "ban most shit". Which makes most of the material useless.

It may not be my favorite edition, but 4e's fixes are far less severe than either 3e or 3.5. And certainly don't invalidate most books.

Look at who you are replying to mate. 4e is absolutely my favorite edition. I just think it pays to be fair in matters of system discussions.

no, that would be pf

You also forgot E6, which also falls under "Ban 90% of the content"

PF is a funny way of abbreviating BECMI or RC.

I did!

Good catch.

At that point just play Lamentations or Black Hack or something.

Banning 90% of the content still leaves a system five times the size of most systems.

And, you act like any large system isn't a matter of pick and choose. The fact that the parts can largely be used together and that you can integrate things at your own discretion is actually a bonus, not a fault, and you really just sound like a person looking for reasons not to like something, and deciding that anything different must be bad.

Hey Rich, how ya doing?

3.5 actively encourages players to make mixed groups of casters and non-casters

4e tells you that you CAN mix Essentials and non-essentials classes, but you probably shouldn't

Whats wrong with sorcerers bro? I think they play fine also ranger are awful. True the beastmaster ranger sucks ass but being a hunter, even straigh from the PHB os syill a good class. I think hating on the ranger as a whole is a retarded concept and more of meme at this point.

The problem with sorcerers is wizards

Wizards are just better sorcerers, more spells known and prepared, wider spell-pool, stronger class features.

Making a wizard, then preparing exactly the same spells every day and just calling yourself a "sorcerer" makes for a better sorcerer in 5e than the actual sorcerer class

>3.5 actively encourages players to make mixed groups of casters and non-casters

And? Depending on what material you use, it's not really that OMGTEHWORSTTHINGEVER like spergs like to pretend it is. 95% of the "OMGMARTIALSSUCK" complaints are actually towards a few specific martial classes, while there's plenty of similarly weak spellcasters. If anything, the Spellcasters Vs. Martials business is just an old generalization that's about a decade outdated, but still carried around because those 3rd edition haters aren't really interested in accuracy or anything resembling fair assessments.

At the end of the day, it's a stupidly big system, and it relies on the DM being able to work with it. Still, in the hands of a good DM, you're going to have a hard time finding a better game, especially considering the game is over a decade old at this point. While it's good to experiment with new systems, and perhaps move on to one's that cater to your group's needs better (like the thoroughly modernized 5e or the more balanced 4e), it's still a gold mine of great material, especially some of the published adventures.

It's a damn shame that Veeky Forums has a few autists that can't help but sperg out whenever the system is mentioned though, we'd be all better without them. I'm just glad that most people have stopped taking them seriously, and that they've mostly quieted down.

The only thing that's amazing is how far the 3.PF apologists will go to make excuses for their shitty, shitty system.

3.5's biggest problem is that the system lies to you

Yes, if you can figure out all the lies and tricks the books contain and work around them the system is huge, varied and offers a vast field of possibilities, even beyond the main appeal of the system (character building). But you shouldn't have to do that.

This is why I would say the absolute worst classes in 4e are the knight and bladesinger. Not because they're the weakest classes, they aren't, but because the correct way to build them involves discarding everything the books tell you about building them, and that is awful, awful game design

4e technically has more classes and monsters, but they're all very samey. There are four PC roles and like seven monster roles, and each thing plays like all the others within the same role. Also, apparently the monster statistics in the first two monster manuals are completely fucked to shit and unusable, so there might be fewer monsters you can actually use.

>each thing plays like all the others within the same role

Except this isn't true, at all. Different classes within the same role achieve it in very different ways, and even different builds within a single class can have completely different and highly distinct playstyles. This is an ignorant comment trotted out by people who do not understand 4e, or who become confused by the fact that all classes use standard formatting and clear layouts.

Relax, it's obviously a joke

No one actually believes that shit anymore, not unless they've been completely out of the loop for the past 7 years

>Also, apparently the monster statistics in the first two monster manuals are completely fucked to shit and unusable, so there might be fewer monsters you can actually use.

You really shouldn't just repeat half-remembered bullshit when you don't really know what you're talking about. Makes you look like an arsehole when you get stuff wrong.
for your edification, those monsters are completely usable. They don't deal enough damage. That's it. You just need to increase the damage. It's easy. There's even a formula and everything. Hell even if you don't bother changing them, they're still usable, there's just a chance your players might drag out combat.

Didn't a lot of the old monsters get updated stats with the new math anyway?

Those are some interesting and very personal opinions. I'm sorry you are part of that minority that somehow decided that your personal misinterpretations were the books lying to you, but for the overwhelming majority of players, and I repeat overwhelming majority of players, and I think I need to repeat that again because you don't really seem to appreciate that, for the overwhelming majority of players, it's nowhere near as controversial a system as you like to pretend it is. When looking at book sales, online searches, game convention and online statistics, it really seems like very few people have these intense problems you've personally experienced, or more importantly, have easily mitigated them.

Is it the most balanced system? Definitely not. The decade+ of intense scrutiny has revealed a fair amount of the system's balance issues, but that simply means that there's plenty of help and guidelines for people interested in learning how to tailor the system to their tastes. I get it, that you're the kind of people who are STILL upset about the game and no one's ever going to convince you otherwise about it, but it's kind of sad to watch you guys squirm around STILL. If anything, I think you might be better off trying to address the game as it's actually played already, because you seem to be trying to scare people away from 3.5, but only ending up convincing them to play the game while avoiding the common pitfalls. That, or moving them on to 5e. Either way, the numbers seem to be consistent that they're not trickling down to play the lesser known games or 4e, so if that was your goal, it doesn't really seem to be working.

But whatev. I'm not getting paid to be your strategist or psychiatrist.

It's a tough choice.

>more options for everyone across the board starting from level 1
Is really this a good thing for new players? Most 5w classes start simple for a reason. And you can start at level 3 if you want to avoid that.

>more meaningful powers
What does this mean?

>monster customization rules allow the DM for a lot of fun
This is true. 4e has better monsters. 5e definitely threw out the baby with the bathwater when it came to monsters, though it is possible to reintroduce and replicate a lot of that stuff in 5e, but obviously that is more work for the DM.

>It looks like it would fit my players, who only have a board game background, more.
4e is more boardgamey, yeah. If you think your players would prefer the tactical combat of 4e that's a big point in it's favour. With 4e, the combat is generally what will win you over or lose you. If there's something outside of combat that you feel 4e is missing, there's nothing stopping you from introducing it without affecting the combat.

>5e looks much simpler and easier to run and lends itself more to theatre of the mind kinda play, being more representative of the way I've always played RPGs prior.
All this is true.
It comes down to what you think you or your players will value more. It's also imortant to remember that it's not that difficult to borrow the aspects you like from one and add them to the other. With some work, it's largely possible to have the best of both worlds.

>Michael Bay's Transformers movies are excellent and should never be criticised because they're popular and make money

This is you. This is what you are saying.

>For the overwhelmingly majority of players
What? For whom? Nobody plays 3.5 anymore, everyone moved on - to Pathfinder, to 4e, to 5e. And for a good reason.

That's strawmanning, friendo. And bad strawmanning at that.
What's your next fallacy?

Stop replying to trolls FFS.

There's a 3.PF troll using the same shitty logical fallacies every single time.

You do know that this long, passive aggressive post makes it really obvious how upset you are, right? It's really transparent.

It's just worrying is all

I've met several people who refuse to play RPGs now because 3.5 gave them such a caustic introduction to the entire hobby. And people who have gotten so far into 3.5 that they refuse to try anything else because the "system mastery" 3.5 requires is silly

I don't want people to have their experience so heavily limited because of this bloated blanket system covering the tabletop RPG hobby. Fortunately, my fears are finally being waylaid by 5e. It's simple, quick, fun, and more popular than anything else, a perfect introductory system, and a far superior system to have blanketing the hobby than 3.5

4e is very complex to play well, for both DM and players. I find it rewarding because I enjoy its class system, balance, and mechanical complexity. However, this is a double-edged sword, as it can be potentially overwhelming for players new to RPGs who can't take advantage of all of the opportunities they have given such an array of mechanics which can both speak for a character in fluff and provide valuable tactical effects. Also, it doesn't "feel like D&D" for a lot of people, for whatever that's worth.

5e is far better for new players. It's much simpler and more intuitive, while still quite fun, especially because there are mechanics that promote roleplay and helping people without experience create not just a character sheet, but a character. It's in no way the first or best at this, but it does a good job slipping the medicine in with the meal. It's also more open to improvisation, which I find is a fine thing to encourage in new players so they solve problems in more interesting ways for their entire hobby career.

Where's that optional rule to reduce magic item reliance? One of my three problems with 4e design compared to 5e is the magic item dependence/assumption.

Inherent bonuses. It's a good one to use, letting you focus more on the interesting powers and effects items have instead of just always racing for a higher modifier.

A fair amount have moved on to 5e, true, but I think it's very fair to group Pathfinder together with 3.5, where it's comfortably in 2nd place. Even not combined, it's in 3rd place. Despite its advanced age, it's still surprisingly popular, so it's not really fair to say "Nobody plays it anymore."

But almost none have moved to 4e beyond the initial migration. In fact, it's recently become the first D&D since 2e to drop below a non-D&D game in global popularity, and it's steadily dropping. It might actually be surpassed by World of Darkness by the end of the year, as it seems to also having many of its players move to 5e.

Overall, I think the key thing to take away isn't that 3.5 is bad so its losing players (it holding onto so many players for so many years is actually pretty impressive), but that 5e is really good. Almost half of all players play 5e. and they'll very likely have a majority by the end of the year.

In the Darksun book.

It's supported by the CBLoader, so you can find it in there too.

I would disagree on the DM-ing front

4e is super-easy to DM, the monsters are clear, concise, and there's a bajillion of them to use, on top of that, if you find a monster to use that's the wrong level, you can easily down-level or up-level it to the point where you need it.

As a player I've always found 4e very simple to play. Everything is very clearly laid out and easy to use, with CBloader making character generation a breeze.

Sure, you might not be playing optimally, bit if the GM is running a low-op game you can afford to fool around and learn how to use your powers by experimentation and you'll still do alright.

3.5 didn't hold on to players so much as it had so many players that even after losing a gigantic amount of it's playerbase to other systems, it's still got a fuckton of players.

In the early 2000s, 3rd edition was pretty much the end-all-be-all of RPGs. EVERY game had a d20 variant. EVERYONE who played tabletop RPGs was a 3e-3.5 player

>There are four PC roles and like seven monster roles
Hey, it's three times as many monster roles as 5e has.
Elite and solo monsters also have too high defenses.

Are you talking about the roll20 stats?

You know that players can be in multiple games there, right? 3.PF and 3.5 have basically equal player count because anyone playing one will also play the second. We can also safely assume that there's another huge overlap between 5e and 3.PF/3.5 numbers. It's really hard to tell from that graph what people actually are playing at the moment, because all the games are counted.

Meanwhile, 3.PF sales are down the shitter. With 5e appealing to the same audience, it player retention rates are fucking terrible.

5e is amazing for newer players, especially players unfamiliar with these kinds of games. Especially with the easy to understand Advantage/Disadvantage systems. Players learn real quick what is detrimental to them when they see that shiny 17+ roll get replaced by the crappy 6-

3.5 doesn't really so much require "system mastery", it's just that the game has so much depth and material that people can end up with wildly different levels of mastery which generates conflict. New groups tend to play the game without any major issues, and experienced groups likewise, but there is the issue where powergamers can really twist the system if the DM isn't ready for them. You need to remember that 3.0 revitalized the industry and more than doubled the amount of players in the world, and for its time it was a perfectly good first step into the world of role playing games. It may not be to everyone's tastes, however, but there's really no reason for anyone to be so bitter about its popularity, then or now.

But, yeah, I'm also glad about 5e. It's really great for new players, and has really helped bring tons of new people into the hobby. With its existence, it's really hard to recommend playing 3.5, but that shouldn't undermine the wealth of material that edition provides, no more than 5e's existence should undermine all the great lore and material from 2e.

His argument is basically self indulgent horseshit. Especially since Roll20 is implicitly biased towards D&D and similar games, since they require a grid while a lot of other games do not, and thus have no real need for Roll20's extra features.

A good solution is to let sorcerers know all spells.
A fun mechanic is to let them permanently burn a spell from their spell list to cast it when they're out of spells/day. (Last resort)

>Expending permanent progression for temporary benefits

Eurgh, no.

I dunno, burning fate points in 40k RPGs is an interesting mechanic

>mechanical complexity
>4th Edition?
wut? 4E is very much straightforward with very little ways to combo.

Started to Dm a group of absolute newcomers because 5e is advertised as being simpler allthough rhe rules are not in my native language yet. Best decision ever. 4e would have been an absolute shitfest.

It's mechanically complex but all the rules are laid out in a straightforward manner

There's a lot more dancing around actions and individual bonuses in 4e than there is in 5e

Combos in 4e are generally teamwork based instead of within your character, although there are still some powerful synergies you can make use of.

Figuring out how the various party members can combine their strengths most effectively is a large part of the fun I have with the system, and a lot of why I enjoy playing Leaders, enabling my allies to leverage their strengths most effectively.

5e is better for new players but worse for new DMs, 4e is better for new DMs but worse for new players.

If you have both new DMs and new players, pick 5e since the DM has much more narrative control than the players and can correct mistakes quicker.

The only roll20 numbers I pay attention to are games being played.

But, you're actually wrong about the 3.PF sales being in the shitter. They're much lower than they were in the past, but they're still outselling just about every single system short of 5e. That's partially thanks to Wizards reprinting 3.5 books not too long ago, and just general brand recognition and availability, but it's still fairly impressive.

And, you shouldn't overlook convention numbers. Even though they're doing much better about encouraging people to play other games, 3.PF still sits comfortably in 2nd place, though the margin between it and 5e widens every day.

Overall, 3.PF is still doing pretty well going into seventeenish years, though it does seem like the juggernaut that is 5e has finally, finally started to really start hitting 3.PF's numbers. Maybe in two or three years, we might see a non-D&D system rise above it to be in 2nd place, but we're not going to see it drop from the top 10 in the next decade.

It's gonna happen rarely but it's still pretty cool.
A wizard without spells = fucked.
A sorc without spells = can still cast their most powerful spells, but is it worth it?

It also makes for some really memorable situations.

>With its existence, it's really hard to recommend playing 3.5
I disagree. I really don't like 4th but I'd rather recommend playing 4th because at least that edition knows what it wants to do. 5th just feels like substance-less pandering, where they put on some make-up to appeal to fans of 2nd or 3rd but there's no actual content behind it. Trying to run an open ended oldschool style adventure in 5th falls flat because the rules still allow people to roll for awesome instead of having to figure stuff out in meta, trying to play an autistic simulation a la 3.5 doesn't work because the framework isn't granular enough, a tactical combat simulation a la 4th doesn't work because there's not enough combat content to keep people different. I honestly have no fucking clue what 5E tries to be except as marketable as possible.

I disagree, because even on a team level bonuses tended to be straightforward numerical or standardized status effects rather than the open ended effects of 3.5 that allowed for just plain crazy shit to happen by using/abusing fringe cases of abilities.

>that edition knows what it wants to do.
Problem is, most people don't like what it does.

5e is much more like a toolset than its more defined preceding editions, but that's what enables different DMs to easily adapt it to their own styles. It's got a loose and somewhat bland "default", but if you're ever expecting people to stick to the default for longer than a few sessions, you're looking at some particularly uncreative people.

3.5 is like K'Nex. Fun, but somewhat awkward, and it takes a bit of expertise to really take it to the more advanced levels, but you can build truly amazing things with it, including toy cars.
4e is like a pre-made toy car. Looks great, fast, and does everything you'd want a toy car to do, but it's really, really hard to make it more than a toy car.
5e is like legos. Simple, easy to use, and while it may be a bit clunky and blocky at first, there's really no limits to where you can take it.

By that analogy, 3.5 is some shitty knockoff K'Nex with some pieces missing, some sockets that don't work and rods of inconsistent length that make actually building what you want with it far harder than it should be without knowing exactly how everything doesn't quite work.

Are you still here? Go on, shoo. Adults are talking.

I've found 4e surprisingly good for running old-school style dungeon crawls. Which is generally something I've heard people say it can't do.

But D&D isn't sold as a construction kit game like GURPS. It's a fantasy adventure RPG that you expect to work for that out of the box.

>I disagree, because even on a team level bonuses tended to be straightforward numerical or standardized status effects rather than the open ended effects of 3.5 that allowed for just plain crazy shit to happen by using/abusing fringe cases of abilities.

Using/abusing fringe cases of abilities doesn't lead to interesting gameplay though. It leads to degenerate shit, where the wizard + planar shepard take 16 full turns before anyone can even move.

Imbalance is fun; when localized. When you have the chance to set up some exploding barrels pre-fight to cause a cave in and destroy an entire encounter, or you set up a zone of silence ritual before the fight so your enemy commander can't communicate, or you use the traps against the kobolds who set them? Those are fucking great.

The problem with 3.5 is that the imbalance is basically always available. It removes the need for tactical thinking and turns it into a checklist of "did he think of a way to block THIS instant win move I have?".

How the flying fuck is 4e more boxed in than 5e? Just try running Eberron, or even Planescape in 5e as it is. The system is absolutely not able to deal with that shit, while 4e can be really easily de-powered.

>there's really no limits to where you can take it.
But there is, as I elaborated. Old school won't work, because you still roll to get out of jail free. Autism won't work because the system doesn't simulate enough mechanical details. Tactical Combat Game won't work because the combat is too streamlined to fit all the options in there.

>5e is much more like a toolset than its more defined preceding editions
No it's not. It has fuck all content or modularity. GURPS is a toolset, because it's modular. You can stick any two rules from any two GURPS books together and they'll interact in a mechanically sound reason. 5E just has very basic rules that somewhat work together and basically rely on DM bullshitting a lot more to do anything else except not on a consistent basis.

>By that analogy, 3.5 is some shitty knockoff K'Nex with some pieces missing, some sockets that don't work and rods of inconsistent length that make actually building what you want with it far harder than it should be without knowing exactly how everything doesn't quite work.
Nah. 3.5 is a big box. In that box are a bunch of LEGOs, constrction tools and a selection from the steel isle of your home depot.
If you play with the LEGOs you're fine, if you use the construction tools to make a scale model of the golden gate bridge down to the rivets you're fine, try to mix and you'll have half you're people sit around doing shit while the others are busy welding and stuff.

You might want to consider reading the DM's Guide for once.

Knex and Legos are shit explanations. As much as I like 5e my dislike of 3.5 is irrelevant the systems are only good for D&D. It isn't something like GURPS or FATE that can be adapted to a huge number of situations. However, they present different versions of D&D still. 3.5 is hella finnicky and high power high fantasy for the lucky classes with an old style of book and art. 4e is high power high fantasy that specifically gives high flying "action movie"esque battles, where combatants save their special moves for the strongest foes and cut down waves of minions. 5e is lower power, more bare-bones and simple, and is outputting official content at a much lower rate, as well as refurnishing classic content such as Ravenloft or the about-to-release collection of 7 famous dungeons.
So don't try saying that 4e's "rigid" any more than its siblings, especially considering homebrew. In 5e it's easy enough if you pay attention, since the benefits are generally simple and easy to reign in to bounded accuracy if you learn the existing material. In 4e you can achieve amazing customization by building smartly and refluffing things; the game is built and encourages using the mechanics and describing them however you'd like. Trying to homebrew in 3.5, which has the same cluttered "natural language" as 5e but much more fiddly material, is a nightmare.

>But there is, as I elaborated. Old school won't work, because you still roll to get out of jail free. Autism won't work because the system doesn't simulate enough mechanical details. Tactical Combat Game won't work because the combat is too streamlined to fit all the options in there.

You just need to adjust a few things. I'm really shocked that you want to try and ascribe so many restrictions when the game goes out of its way to provide a wealth of variants and suggestions to enable people to play in a variety of styles.

If your goal is to not have fun, you're clearly going to succeed. But, trying not to have fun is not really how people play games.

I have. So what's your excuse?

>You just need to adjust a few things.

If the system can't do it unless you go outside the system to do it... Then the system can't do it, you're just bodging it to make it work.

>Just try running Eberron, or even Planescape in 5e as it is.

Okay.

....

...

...

...

...

Wasn't that bad, really.

If you've read it, you'd know you're just talking out your ass. So, don't lie about your illiteracy.