Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Igwilly" data-source="post: 7166676" data-attributes="member: 6801225">I disagree with you.First, I think the plan was to sink 4e so that its fans would go to the next edition, and then WotC and the big guy come out as heroes.It may seems weird, but thinking a little back, it's clear that the changes they made weren't to please 4e fans.Also, Mearls actually made a mistake and told the following information: he was already planning 5e by late 2010. Which is when Essentials was released. The rest just follows it.Second: I know both 5e and 2e, and I just have to disagree with people who say they are similar. 2e has been a huge fun to me - just by reading - more than 5e could ever be. Honestly, 5e rejected most of what I actually like from past editions - instead of fixing it - so all the spice is irrelevant. Plus, they didn't include what I liked about 4e, and the few things that it kept were so altered and out-of-context that it just doesn't matter.I just don't think this is important to the initial discussion. One thing I learned is that, it's not safe to try to change too much in the same edition. Some changes should wait a .5 revision, really.Essentials' design itself isn't that bad by itself. However, in my honest opinion, the paradigm change was so big it should be an official 4.5 edition. Things would be a lot clearer.Much stuff was good. To flexibilize roles and power sources is one of them. Having simple options is another. And I especially loved the Hexblade, the Witch, healer Druid, Elementalist and Sha'ir.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Igwilly, post: 7166676, member: 6801225"] I disagree with you. First, I think the plan was to sink 4e so that its fans would go to the next edition, and then WotC and the big guy come out as heroes. It may seems weird, but thinking a little back, it's clear that the changes they made weren't to please 4e fans. Also, Mearls actually made a mistake and told the following information: he was already planning 5e by late 2010. Which is when Essentials was released. The rest just follows it. Second: I know both 5e and 2e, and I just have to disagree with people who say they are similar. 2e has been a huge fun to me - just by reading - more than 5e could ever be. Honestly, 5e rejected most of what I actually like from past editions - instead of fixing it - so all the spice is irrelevant. Plus, they didn't include what I liked about 4e, and the few things that it kept were so altered and out-of-context that it just doesn't matter. I just don't think this is important to the initial discussion. One thing I learned is that, it's not safe to try to change too much in the same edition. Some changes should wait a .5 revision, really. Essentials' design itself isn't that bad by itself. However, in my honest opinion, the paradigm change was so big it should be an official 4.5 edition. Things would be a lot clearer. Much stuff was good. To flexibilize roles and power sources is one of them. Having simple options is another. And I especially loved the Hexblade, the Witch, healer Druid, Elementalist and Sha'ir. [/QUOTE]

Verification