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="Samnell" data-source="post: 3758041" data-attributes="member: 130">Fluff-wise, I loathe the assumed setting. Powerfully. I find isolated frontier regions strangling. I dislike the changes to elves, but less powerfully. These are things that I can hopefully avoid with minimal effort. D&D's default setting fluff is usually a trivial effort to ignore in itself, but its impact on crunch design can be subtle. 1e and 2e both had extremely strong setting assumptions which cut across every world TSR produced and were very strangling to me, since they manifested in many condescending lectures about how magic can never, ever be a commodity, it's rare, and so forth. They further hindered design by creating spaces that the rules were not supposed to go to. Rules for creating magic items amounted to level prerequisites and a lecture for the DM about how PCs should not really be allowed to do it. That's fine if your idea of fantasy fits those tastes. Mine is just the opposite.Crunch-wise, they're getting rid of many things that I either like and think slot very nicely into the milieu or do not rise to the level of needing the level of change involved. I potently loathe the direction they're taking with monster stats. Judging from the commentary in those threads, I think I like monsters using the same rules as players at least as much as the people who hate it dislike it. I am further extremely unfond of the haphazard way we're getting information and consider the tiny open playtest an incredibly worrisome blunder on WotC's part.I think ultimately I don't want a 4e. I do not want a major revision to the game. I want 3.75. At the very least, I do not want what we are lead to believe 4e is. I like the Tome of Battle so much I'm using it on my NPCs and wrote a 22 page review of it for my players. I like the idea that casters have some kind of specials that they can use battle after battle, and fighters have cool tricks to keep up. However, I think I'd prefer if a wizard were closer to 40% or 50% depleted when he blew all his spell slots instead of 20%. I don't care at all for the de-emphasis of magic items. I would rather a new DMG offered two or three sets of wealth by level scales and the new MM offered CRs to match each one. That would only require two more numbers on the CR line, separated by a slash, and a couple more charts in the DMG.If what we get ends up to be an extremely over-hyped 3.75, I'll be one happy gamer. But what I hear about the mechanics and flavor suggest to me that it's really another whole new game. Having built up a powerful loathing of 1e and 2e pretty much as soon as I saw another RPG (and I live in a small town with a pathetic RPG section in a small local bookstore, so this took years) I had given up on D&D entirely. I still tried to play or run it sometimes, but by the time I was done filling out a character sheet I was irritated with the thing and ready to toss it away. I played a lot of Alternity and some of the other games TSR put out, which were uniformly better put together than D&D. I bought 2e setting books because I enjoyed reading about the settings, but they didn't see much actual play.So I guess my answer is that both things make me fairly irate and sometimes enthused, but in different ways.</blockquote>

Verification