Search results

Admittedly, it is a hair trigger response. But I don't want to play Pathfinder, I play D&D. Yes, the name, and all of its trappings is actually a big friggin' deal. I want my Beholders and Illithids and whatever the hell else is D&D IP. I want my three books. These books will replace...

Seriously, it was in my first :):):):)ing post on this subject. Welcome to ignore. No need to be rude about it. It's easy to miss out on some info now and then. - Lwaxy

I dunno, when someone says Go Play Pathfinder when I say I want 3.5E it is like saying Go Buy Gobots when what I want is Transformers. Or McDonald's when I want Burger King. It really didn't even need to be said. Why is it so appalling for someone to not think Pathfinder is an improvement...

I hate when people piggyback off the backs of the hard work of others, make minimal changes to that work, and that package it up as a new product. The rules tweaks aren't why it isn't D&D, the lack of it being D&D is what makes it not be D&D. When I want 3.5E, I want 3.5E. Why is that so...

First off, I want the 3.5E I played before I switched to 4E, not a rip off product. The rules language is essentially the same, I couldn't give a rip about the fluff they injected. Not incredibly. That is debateble. And yet still not D&D. And yet, bottom line, I want these to replace books...

But there doesn't need to be. They are the ones designing the game. They can decide NOT to include one. Seriously, lay out like ten things you can do with a minor action, and call it a day. NEVER write new things. But, I get what you are saying. Inevitably SOMEONE will try to include more...

Apparently I gave my 3.5E books to my brother (I say apparently because I had them, they disappeared, and were found at his apartment, but this was after 4E had come out, so no big deal), so I will pick a set of these up. I wonder if they are keeping the regular cover art of doing something...

Well, apparently I have given you XP recently, so you get a post quote instead. Hooray for you. :) This definitely gives me hope with the skill system, since one of my big fears, which seems to be related to how skills are displayed on character sheets (perhaps just how they are worded), is...

Wow, only 60% is happy with the direction DDN is headed. And they are spinning this as a GOOD thing. Less than two thirds. I would be willing to bet a good portion of that 40% is 4E fans. So much for unification. They seem to be trying to unify with an axe.

I am really starting to think that they just can't accept that 4E brought good things into the game. The Reaction...action seems to be EXACTLY the same thing as the Immediate action from 4E. I really hate that they are getting rid of the Minor action. I could see leaving it in place, but...

This sums up my experience at the moment as well. I do have hope, especially from the AMA from MM, but if WotC is unable to deliver on what he is saying, I won't be investing my usual $90-120 on it.

Well, clearly the system does not want me to give you experience, so I am just going to have to agree here. My biggest problem with class reduction is that if a person plays without themes or backgrounds, they wouldn't have access to themes. This leaves people that don't want to play with...

I kinda hope specialization is something that is available to the wizard without a theme. Have all the schools and a Generalist school that they can choose, and they gain benefits when casting spells from their school. Generalist would grant a lesser bonus to all spells or something. They...

I don't really consider Essentials the Core of 4E anyway, since it was just an alternate presentation of existing classes, but still the same system. Including Essentials in the mix would include 3.5E in the mix, which ultimately brings the count up to Seven to Six. Regardless, the three book...

By my count, that is seven three-book versions to five non-three-book versions. Three-book versions win! :P

It is almost as if they have talked about the Paladin and the Assassin among others in addition to the core four. They are committed to including the classes from the first Player's Handbooks in this book. They may have mentioned BECMI a few times, but hardly a day goes by where before they...

Essentially, yes. I learned on AD&D, never even knew Basic existed until long after it had been discontinued. Besides, AD&D had long established the three book formula before Basic gained the Expert books. Regardless, 5E is evolving from the AD&D->2E->3E->4E line, not Basic.

I don't really consider them part of the same branch that grew from 1E, so not really. I think 5E is going to be growing from the Advanced branch. Basic is the long abandoned branch. Technically, BECMI DOES have three books, it just happens to have a fourth and a fifth, though, too. You are...

Three books or it isn't D&D. Period.

I took it. It was quite well written (unlike the playtest itself...:(). I did feel like I ended up hammering a few points because of it. But, I hit them on Skills, Spells, and Monsters as those are the areas I think need the most work. I do wonder what happens if they get a very large...