Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Trickster Spirit" data-source="post: 6163724" data-attributes="member: 6701829">This. A thousand times this. We're seeing exactly what we should have been expecting to see at this point in the process. When the math fixes in this L&L make their way into a packet, they'll get plenty of feedback on what still needs to be tweaked and have plenty of time to implement it and playtest those fixes as well. That said, I can honestly say that, wonky numbers aside, I'm already immensely pleased with Next. Even if the final product was as unbalanced as the playtest is now (and I agree that the final math should be between 3.5 and 4e in tightness), I'd be happier with a homebrew tweaked-math version of Next than I would be with either 3.5/Pathfinder or 4e; the speed of play and modular complexity are precisely what I've been wanting in my D&D. The other common complaint I've been seeing in regards to Next is that each packet is becoming increasing complex and less rules-light. Which I don't think anyone needs to really worry about because we've already been told repeatedly by Mearls to expect Basic / Standard / Advanced tiers in the finished product. The increasing complexity we're seeing in the packets is them haphazardly implementing Standard and Advanced optional rules to see what sticks. When all is said and done, you'll be able to turn dials and drop rules subsystems to your heart's content, which is what 3.5 was always terrible at and the main reason I'm so on board with everything we've been hearing about Next.</blockquote>

Verification