Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arkhandus" data-source="post: 4688930" data-attributes="member: 13966">I agree with this analysis.  And I agree with Desert Hare.They fragmented the market more, making many of us 3e players/DMs decide not to buy into their new edition and instead become 3e pseudo-grognards.  There's so much out there for use with 3e, or variations of it, that 4e seems like a poor move.  4e is NOWHERE NEAR as easy to use in conjunction with old (more complete, more detailed) campaign setting materials, old modules, or other d20/3e materials.  Though it may have cut down on DM prep time somewhat, slightly easing the adaptation of some modules, that's the only thing it has going for it in that department.  It doesn't work with the flavor and style of the old settings so much.A 4e that stuck more closely with 3e, a 'perfected' version of 3e, would have been more widely acceptable and useable, and more preferable to me and many other folks who still stick with 3e.  Many of us would have 'upgraded' and thereby given WotC money we aren't giving them now.  Done right, it probably would've attracted new players and brought back those who ditched 3e before, with some streamlining.I don't hate 4e necessarily, I just don't *like* it as a new edition of D&D.  I love the Tome of Battle for 3.5, but it's not what I want for a standard D&D game, not what I associate with all the cool settings D&D has had.  I don't like the new core setting or the new core assumptions, or the thoroughly videogamey/anime-style of the races and classes in 4e.  The classes are too similar and wierd for me (had they been renamed and used in splats, rather than being the core assumptions, they'd be less irksome).  And it's just too combat-oriented.</blockquote>

Verification