Is Earthdawn anywhere near as light as 5e?

(And before people who rejoice in finding a connotation and running for the end zone, I'm not in any way suggesting 5e is a rules light game)

Official answer: Almost certainly not. ED1 came out during the early '90s, IIRC, and was more or less comparable to AD&D 2e; basically FASA filing off the serial numbers, cleaning up some of the clunkier mechanics and axing Vancian magic altogether in favor of Thread Weaving, which essentially used target numbers instead of limited casting slots (it also split magic users up into distinct disciplines, which I vastly prefer to the generic wizard + school specialization approach of D&D). I don't imagine anyone would call AD&D rules-lite, and given the broad similarities between the two I can't see the adjective being applied to Earthdawn either. ED2 (released by Living Room Games) tried to clean out some of the cruft while upping the general power level of the game a bit; I thought it worked fairly well, but as LRG wasn't trying to simplify things 2e wasn't really any better on that front. 3rd Edition/Revised/Classic were all published by Redbrick, Ltd. and were thus a chaotic mess of towering fuck ups. I washed my hands of the whole line years ago.

Unofficial answer: Maybe. The folks at FASA Games have said one of their main goals in designing ED4 is streamlining and simplifying things, but as I missed the KickStarter I don't have any info beyond that what's been released to the general public. I'm hopeful they can make good on their intention, and the way they've changed how armor-defeating hits work, at least, seems a step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen how successful they are overall. My gut tells me it'll probably have a fair bit more mechanical heft to it than 5e, and I doubt it will be nearly as modular (if at all), but for me, at least, it has the benefit of being my favorite TTRPG backed by the fact my group has spent the past few years playing Pathfinder, so fairly crunchy mechanics isn't really a detriment in my circumstances.

The 5e method worked really well when my group's wizard lost his spellbook.  In the past, I have often been a little hesitant to go after spellbooks due to the crippling nature on wizards.  Now, fuck you wizard, you still have some juice, and it totally makes sense to lose your book here.

Quote from: Old One Eye;816834The 5e method worked really well when my group's wizard lost his spellbook.  In the past, I have often been a little hesitant to go after spellbooks due to the crippling nature on wizards.  Now, fuck you wizard, you still have some juice, and it totally makes sense to lose your book here.

Do you make fighters lose their armor, or clerics lose their ability to pray for new spells as often as a wizard loses their spellbook?

If not, why do you pick on wizards?

A spell book is easier to lose than armor you are wearing?

I always figured that was a balancing element. (Not one I like, mind you)

Quote from: snooggums;816895Do you make fighters lose their armor, or clerics lose their ability to pray for new spells as often as a wizard loses their spellbook?

If not, why do you pick on wizards?

The whole party was captured and sold into slavery.  Everyone lost everything.

In which case, the Wizard actually has the most "boom" left in the group, compared to the naked Fighter (but not Monk)...

Quote from: snooggums;816895If not, why do you pick on wizards?

Because they're nerds.

Wizard spellbooks SHOULD be a vulnerability.  Of course, just trying to intentionally punish wizards for being wizards is a shitty extreme to take that concept.