The Ubbergeek
First Post
DaveMage said:Nah, the hatred and bile is still there, it just could get you banned here if you post about it in too many threads.
Why trolling on the 'Anti' side should be less pushed than on the other side?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
So... is anyone else coming around?
- Thread starter Raduin711
- Start date
Why trolling on the 'Anti' side should be less pushed than on the other side?
The Ubbergeek
First Post
DaveMage said:
Punished, typo.
But ok.
Toben the Many
First Post
When 4e first came out, I was cautiously optimistic. I liked many of the things they were offering out of the door. A larger sweet spot, the doing away with save or die, etc.
However, as more and more stuff was released I began to become skeptical and then downright grumpy.
The latest stuff that I've seen, however has made me sigh in relief. I like what I see a lot. I like the staff, wand, orb thing. I think that's a nice touch. I like the addition of rituals, so that you can't just teleport away. I like that the cleric is finally coming into its own and moving much farther away from the band-aid.
I also hated the new races before, but with the new information released, I'm becoming much more comfortable with them. I would say that I'm fairly neutral about the game at this point and in a wait-and-see period.
My biggest hang-up now is that is seems to me as if they have nerfed magic way too much. But we'll see.
However, as more and more stuff was released I began to become skeptical and then downright grumpy.
The latest stuff that I've seen, however has made me sigh in relief. I like what I see a lot. I like the staff, wand, orb thing. I think that's a nice touch. I like the addition of rituals, so that you can't just teleport away. I like that the cleric is finally coming into its own and moving much farther away from the band-aid.
I also hated the new races before, but with the new information released, I'm becoming much more comfortable with them. I would say that I'm fairly neutral about the game at this point and in a wait-and-see period.
My biggest hang-up now is that is seems to me as if they have nerfed magic way too much. But we'll see.
I was initially optomistic and a bit excited about the initial 4E announcement. However, every piece of info they have released since then makes it seem less and less like D&D, and more like a dumbed down munchkin-bait cash grap with the D&D logo slapped on it to make it "official". At this point, I couldn't get onboard if I wanted to because they keep shoving me away with the blatant WOWification present in 4th edition. The best I could hope for now is to mine a few ideas that might be worthwhile from the core books.
I am pretty much as I was.
It seems (based on limited information) too different from present D&D versions to make me excited.
At the same time it does not really seem revolutionary enough to the underlying basis of the game/system to make me very interested.
This might sound paradoxical but it isn't.
They changed stuff that I don't think they needed to while they didn't really change the overall system (eg bring in mechanics from narrativist type indie games such as stake setting).
So it wont really help with the nolstagia iwould hope to get playing D&D while at the same time the modifications they seem to be making are not what I want in a fantasy genre game.
On the other hand the game might have more of a D&D identity than any of its predecessors and might really create a more unified D&D experience a (vs a generic fantasy one), which will be good if that is what you are looking for. So if I decide to do a dungeoncrawl one-shot or somesuch this might be the system to do it.
It seems (based on limited information) too different from present D&D versions to make me excited.
At the same time it does not really seem revolutionary enough to the underlying basis of the game/system to make me very interested.
This might sound paradoxical but it isn't.
They changed stuff that I don't think they needed to while they didn't really change the overall system (eg bring in mechanics from narrativist type indie games such as stake setting).
So it wont really help with the nolstagia iwould hope to get playing D&D while at the same time the modifications they seem to be making are not what I want in a fantasy genre game.
On the other hand the game might have more of a D&D identity than any of its predecessors and might really create a more unified D&D experience a (vs a generic fantasy one), which will be good if that is what you are looking for. So if I decide to do a dungeoncrawl one-shot or somesuch this might be the system to do it.
SpadeHammerfist
First Post
errmmm, well, no...
I don't think they can change my mind. The way in which they have done all this is just too inconsiderate for me to want to join in with their way of thinking. The beginning of this for me was the thought process that went behind the stopping of Dragon and Dungeon -i.e. we've got a new edition, and we've got this really cool online section of it and we want people to use it and all the money coming to us, so let's get rid of the magazines. Now I know that WotC and other people will cry that it was nothing to do with financial issues, but come on, nobody really believes that, do they?
I think the other big issue I have with the new edition are the concepts behind it.
1. '3.5 is flawed, therefore we must completely redesign most of the crunch and start from scratch'. But aren't the people doing the redesign the same people who designed 3.0 and 3.5? We are going to have to through the same problems again! A lot of the crunch that you read is heavily influenced by the Complete Warrior and that Blades book and all this stuff about jobs in the party and 'not running out of spells'. I just think it's all just copying computer and console games - are we going to get save points as well! Diablo the Roleplaying Game anyone (yes, it really had them!)?
2. 'Because we are scrapping and redesigning a lot of the crunch it is logical that the fluff must also change'. They think, obviously, the type of campaign that we play is something that they should control. All this about a points of light campaign is excellent, IF you want to play/run a poiints of light campaign, they talk about it as if it is something we have never thought of! What are we going to do if we don't like a p.o.l. campaign? What about a High Magic campaign? Not suitable? Do we all want to play in the Lord of the Rings? What they are doing the Realms is just stupid and ludicrous. The whole concept of the Realms is about variety of play, but they want to make the whole of it the same! Before you could change the nature of your campaign by moving from Waterdeep to Myth Drannor to Thay to Chult to the Border Kingdoms and so on, and so on. Now it seems it won't matter where you are, it's all 'heroes against the world' - boring, boring. now I know some will say that 'you are in control of your own campaign, but it puts you into the situation where you have to mod the system to your campaign. I always felt that up till now that was pretty easy, and if you didn't mod the campaign you could still run your own type of campaign anyway.
Hmmm, rant over, what do you think?
I don't think they can change my mind. The way in which they have done all this is just too inconsiderate for me to want to join in with their way of thinking. The beginning of this for me was the thought process that went behind the stopping of Dragon and Dungeon -i.e. we've got a new edition, and we've got this really cool online section of it and we want people to use it and all the money coming to us, so let's get rid of the magazines. Now I know that WotC and other people will cry that it was nothing to do with financial issues, but come on, nobody really believes that, do they?
I think the other big issue I have with the new edition are the concepts behind it.
1. '3.5 is flawed, therefore we must completely redesign most of the crunch and start from scratch'. But aren't the people doing the redesign the same people who designed 3.0 and 3.5? We are going to have to through the same problems again! A lot of the crunch that you read is heavily influenced by the Complete Warrior and that Blades book and all this stuff about jobs in the party and 'not running out of spells'. I just think it's all just copying computer and console games - are we going to get save points as well! Diablo the Roleplaying Game anyone (yes, it really had them!)?
2. 'Because we are scrapping and redesigning a lot of the crunch it is logical that the fluff must also change'. They think, obviously, the type of campaign that we play is something that they should control. All this about a points of light campaign is excellent, IF you want to play/run a poiints of light campaign, they talk about it as if it is something we have never thought of! What are we going to do if we don't like a p.o.l. campaign? What about a High Magic campaign? Not suitable? Do we all want to play in the Lord of the Rings? What they are doing the Realms is just stupid and ludicrous. The whole concept of the Realms is about variety of play, but they want to make the whole of it the same! Before you could change the nature of your campaign by moving from Waterdeep to Myth Drannor to Thay to Chult to the Border Kingdoms and so on, and so on. Now it seems it won't matter where you are, it's all 'heroes against the world' - boring, boring. now I know some will say that 'you are in control of your own campaign, but it puts you into the situation where you have to mod the system to your campaign. I always felt that up till now that was pretty easy, and if you didn't mod the campaign you could still run your own type of campaign anyway.
Hmmm, rant over, what do you think?
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I am still on the fence and won't make a final determination until it's in my hands for evaluation. But I will throw in my agreement that my skepticism is growing based on the information coming out. That might be partly because it's hard to synthesize it all and we may be seeing some faulty conclusions being drawn.
By contrast, my skepticism of 3E was very high initially and my interest was fed by the information being released. That might have been because of the nature of the information put out or its timing, but I will say more of it had me nodding my head in agreement than the stuff I'm hearing now.
By contrast, my skepticism of 3E was very high initially and my interest was fed by the information being released. That might have been because of the nature of the information put out or its timing, but I will say more of it had me nodding my head in agreement than the stuff I'm hearing now.
Similar Threads
Pathfinder 2E
Things You Love about a Game: Pathfinder 2E edition (+)
