In this case I share [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s puzzlement - why was this sales model acceptable for 2nd AD&D, but a moral outrage for 4e? (MM June 2008, MM2 May 2009)?
D&D 5E 15 Petty Reasons I Won't Buy 5e
What stood out to me was the complete absence of the word "option" or any cognate or synonymous word.
The Ggyax text also takes for granted that players can use the book without any special say-so being needed from the referee.
In both these respects there is a marked contrast with the PHB text on psionics.
Emerikol
Adventurer
Thanks for the support. Yeah this is basically what I said.
Emerikol
Adventurer
I don't take that from the text. Of course Gygax wants and expects DMs to use any new book TSR puts out. He wanted to make money. That does not translate into him saying though that this book is a core book on par with the original three and should be accepted without question by the DMs.
Savage Wombat
Hero
Not that I care - but because in 2e, the concept was a single expandable volume released in 2-3 packets (i.e. MM1 pt. 1 , MM1 pt. 2, etc.) and the other was a single hardback with a sequel to be released sometime in the future. Seems pretty different to me.
jodyjohnson
Adventurer
Maybe they should go the Hackmaster route with the monsters released in Encyclopedia form. Where we might never get Troll or Vampire.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Because 4e was dealing with blanket annoyance at "everything is core" in the first place? Because it followed the heightened annoyance at finding previously core classes left out of the PH1 and that spilled over?
And one factor that a lot of people seem to forget:
Because many of the players weren't the same considering these events were happening nearly 20 years apart?
That's one thing that sometimes gets me in these debates about why something was acceptable at one point but wasn't acceptable at another. There's a pretty big span of time involved. People change. Populations change. Markets change. It's hard to assume that just because something was OK at one point in time, it will be OK 20 years later.
That, of course, assumes that the whole Monstrous Compendium issue with iconic monsters split between the first two volumes flew without complaint. It didn't. I remember some pretty sharp criticism directed at the way monsters were broken between the first two sets.
Last edited:
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
This, and this alone, was reason enough for me to redesign 5e before it's even out.
I kept thinking is was just me, that I was just being an obsessive systems designer. Thanks for confirming my bias (and delaying my campaign start that much longer...)
Hussar
Legend
This, and this alone, was reason enough for me to redesign 5e before it's even out.
I kept thinking is was just me, that I was just being an obsessive systems designer. Thanks for confirming my bias (and delaying my campaign start that much longer...)
But there is a logical explanation for this though. The first three levels (1-3) are more or less for developing background for your character. Establishing that character in the setting and that sort of thing. How much time does that really need? They are saying 1 or 2 sessions for the first two level bumps - so, 2-4 sessions (somewhere between 6-16 hours of play, roughly, as an assumption) to establish your character. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Then, you slow down advancement. The character has character so to speak, and doesn't need to change too radically from week to week. The player is filling in the details, but, the large strokes are already established.
Straight line progression doesn't make any more sense than irregular progression. I mean, heck, in AD&D, no one had any linear progression, and everyone advanced at different times. This seems like a nice balance between AD&D and 3e. Zip up through the "apprentice" levels and get to the meat and potatoes after a nice introductory adventure.
