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="innerdude" data-source="post: 6137306" data-attributes="member: 85870">At no point in my original post am I talking about "tradition" (to say nothing of the fact that comparing RPG rules to a real-world religious inquisition is, frankly, asinine). If you were paying attention, the whole point of starting this thread is that I'm very, very, VERY okay---MORE THAN OKAY---with D&D Next totally breaking from tradition. About the only thing that would stop me from buying D&D Next's "Core 3" rulebooks at this point is if there's too much nonsensical, slavish adherence to sacred cows that doesn't really fit with the overall structure of what they want to accomplish. That said, I'm totally fine with "structurally sound" sacred cows remaining, especially if they are accounted for in other aspects of design. I have stated on numerous occasions on these forums that Vancian magic is one of my least favorite parts of "classic" D&D, for both its rules mechanics (crunch) and story (fluff) implications. The fact that pretty much the entire 3e rules system is designed around this fundamental architecture is probably the biggest cause for me to become dissatisfied with the entire 3e product line, including Pathfinder. That said---if I'm going to actually play a "D&D" game, and not some other RPG of which there are now thousands tailored to the letter for particular playstyles, then I might as well play D&D and accept that Vancian magic is part and parcel with the style of game that is "classic" D&D, and nothing else can really emulate it. It would be my desire that 5e re-evaluate how the overall balance works with Vancian magic, but for Next to be "D&D," it needs to be Vancian. If I merely want a "D&D style game" that uses a different casting system, I've got two awesome alternatives at my fingertips in Fantasy Craft and Radiance.Well, if slavish adherence to "per encounter combat balance" is your thing, then don't buy 5e. You've got 4e sitting on shelves in FLGS's and Amazon warehouses all over planet earth to make you happy. Personally, I don't want 4e's approach to balance, nor do I want 3e's approach to balance, or 1e's approach. I want a new approach to balance that works within the framework of what a "D&D Game" should feel like. If there's one thing I truly don't understand at this point, it's the mindset of many 4e fans regarding Next which says, "5e will be unbalanced, and thus will be terrible." This may well be true--depending on ones' views regarding "balance" in the first place--but why do you care? There's enough 4e material out there to last a lifetime. WotC has brought back support for PDFs. DDI isn't going anywhere for at least a year to 18 months after the release of 5e--which is still over a year and a half away. In my mind there's very little reason for 4e fans to be unhappy at this point, other than out of some misguided sense of being "miffed." It's as if somehow because WotC "didn't see the light" and make 4e "the definitive D&D edition," that 4e fans have been personally insulted. For lots of reasons the game simply didn't "stick" in its market, and the company that made the product is moving on. That product, however, isn't going anywhere, so why worry? And if 4e is as "flexible" and "hackable" as many of its proponents claim, it should be relatively simple to convert third-party adventures, etc. to be usable with the system long, long after the product shelf life.I have no interest at this point in trying to "unify" the 4e fanbase and 3e/PF fanbase. The two sides clearly want different things from their D&D game. I am interested, however, in building a new fanbase out of 5e with people who aren't beholden to either, as I am.</blockquote>

Verification