Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 5962793" data-attributes="member: 1544">Well thank you for the explanation. I can understand what you're saying, but from my point of view, doing a 'revised 4e', 'revised 3e' and 'classic' sounds like 3 new editions to me, likely as not to create more splits in the community.Instead of 5  editions, you'd now have 7. Of course, that depends upon how much revision you do. And no matter how much or how little you do, people would complain about it. "Should have done more", "Should have left it alone". I also can't get past the concept that players of Classic would want elements of 4Er, and players of 3Er would want elements of Classic, and so on. One edition which can be shifted in many different ways seems like a sensible option. [MENTION=326]Upper_Krust[/MENTION] I'd love to know how you figured those numbers. Every calculation I've done says that you'd need to roll at least 1 higher on the d20 to hit at 30th than at 1st. Perhaps PM me the details -it's not on topic for this thread.I usually DM. I've never actually played a wizard, and the only cleric I've played is in a game where resting was irrelevant (short adventures, level up between each adventure). So I would have to argue that my love of Vancian magic isn't due to the enjoyment of dominating as a spellcaster. Personally I think it's more because DND was the first fantasy I really knew of (other than the Narnia books). I grew up with Vancian specifically because it was in DND. It's intrinsically tied to DND in my mind. I've never read any of the books in appendix N, so my love for it hasn't come from that source.   My brother explained how memorization worked when I was about 7 and it just made sense to me.It shouldn't be any surprise then to know that I'm in the 'DND without Vancian isn't real DND' camp. [MENTION=86594]Biga[/MENTION]pple Parts of your post really sum up the things I hate about 4E. I don't mind that encounter and dailies are better than a basic attack, but I really feel that at-wills should be on par with basic. That way you have 7 or 8 valid options at level 1. Also it reduces some of the 'wuxia' feel. It's the discrepancies between players like you and I that is going to make WotC's goal so difficult. Based on that post alone, I think you and I are about as far apart in preference as Hussar and I. Believe me, Hussar and I are a very long way apart indeed.Regarding the 2->3 and 3->4 jumps, I can see both sides of the argument. Fewer mechanics survived the transition between 2 and 3 than 3 and 4. However, the things that 4E changed did so in a more significant way. 3E may have made a lot of changes, but the premise remained mostly the same. 4E kept a lot of mechanics, but changed some of the paradigms. Negative AC to Positive AC is easier to swallow than Vancian to AEDU.When I read the 3.0 book I kept finding that the changes made sense (to me) and were quite sensible. When I began playing I noticed these changes even more.When I read the 4E book I kept finding that the changes made me say 'WTF', and some of those changes still go against the grain 3-4 years later.I understood why things shifted in 3E, but 4E went about fixing 'problems' that I'd never encountered in the first place. What am I left with now? I've spent so much time on forums and playing 4E that I can see the flaws in 3E. The flaws in 4E lead me not so much to hate the game, but to turn it into a different type of game. To me, 4E is becoming more and more of a board game. Not because it somehow 'prevents' roleplaying, but because it does tactical combat so well that it makes me want to play a game purely for the tactical combat. As I've said elsewhere; 4E is a good GAME, it's just not what I think of when I want to play DND. I used to play Warhammer 40k for my tactical fix. Ever since starting 4E I haven't felt any desire to play W40k at all. I'm already getting my tactical fix. I'm also getting my strategic fix from character building, rather than army selection.The result of the above paragraph is that I'm no longer satisfied with either edition. I don't want a revised 3E (I'm already playing Pathfinder and it doesn't suit), I definitely don't want a variation of 4E. I could be tempted by an AD&D, but I think ultimately, I want what WotC is doing. I want a rethink, taking all the lessons from all of the editions. I want known problems to be re-examined. I want old solutions to be re-evaluated, and new solutions proposed. I want to have rules broken into little packages that I can apply as I choose because ultimately; that's what I'd be doing regardless of what they write.More than once in the last few months I've thought, "That is a great idea, I want that in my next game" and recorded the detail. If 5E doesn't tick enough of those boxes, I'll damn well take the core and re-write it into Zustiur's Edition. ZE if you will. While I think of it as my edition, I have to give credit where it is due. Nearly every one of the ideas I've written down thus far has come from someone on these very forums.What will win over this player? A combination of things from all editions, and huge amount of re-simplification. The single thing I like the most about 5E right now is the number of pages it fits in. Modules, Spells, Magic Items and Monsters can all take up as many pages as you like, but I want the core to be quick to read, easy to understand, and logically consistent.I want a core that I can use as a springboard for any game I care to play or DM. I want to see new players who aren't put off by the sheer volume of information they have to take in. I want introductory packages with the complete 'core' in about 50 pages (roughly A5). DMs can have a second smaller book in the same bundle if required. And the final caveat of this point; I want those 50 pages to be readable!! I love reading, yet I cannot make myself read 4E's player books. I want to return to the days where I'd flick open the PHB at a random page and enjoy re-reading whatever paragraph my eyes settled on. (This isn't a nostalgia thing either, I still get that feeling from the 2E PHB)</blockquote>

Verification