Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 9253732" data-attributes="member: 20323">I know you're probably right. I like the designers a lot, really and truly, besides James Haeck I'm probably Chris Perkin's number 2 fan. I've converted seven of his old adventures in Dungeon magazine for 5e one-shots. I read his Iomandra (sp?) posts. I've absorbed every bit of publicly available gaming wisdom from him. Even though we never met, he has been a significant impact on me, in a similar way that Wolfgang Baur has been. And I want to support those designers, but the overall ecosystem they (WotC) are operating in with this playtest just seems devoid of the things I'm looking for.Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, I never picked up MPMotM because it seemed really thin on lore and it was republishing stuff I already own in a new format.They have made selective improvements with certain spells in the playtests, definitely. Guidance pops out in my mind as a great change. I guess the big picture questions about play style being dramatically influenced by spells is... I don't think it's a black/white include/dis-include the spell issue... rather it's "how can we include this legacy content in a non-disruptive interesting fun way?" Not to bag on Tiny Hut again, but if you take the time to compare Tiny Hut through every edition, it powers up through the editions, eventually becoming the "force field" version in 4e where the limiting factor is it's exclusively a ritual that costs gold. And the 5e version? Keeps the "force field", makes it an action, removes the time/gold cost. Which was completely unnecessary... and diminishes the original flavor of making a safe shelter from the elements. So can it be included in the game without being disruptive (or requiring GM mental gymnastics)? Absolutely! It was before!</blockquote>

Verification