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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6304208" data-attributes="member: 5143">Here's the deal.  The framework is there for that modularity.  I understand what WOTC is going for, though I suspect many people on this forum will disagree with what WOTC considers a 4e "feel" or a 1e "feel".To them is is about complexity.  A character used to 1e/2e, for instance, can play a character where the only real abilities he has is "attack and deal damage".  He never has to take feats, doesn't even HAVE to take a background(but if he does take a background, he never has to choose proficiencies, he just writes down which ones he gets), he just has to worry about his weapons and armor and that's about it.Someone who is a fan of 3e will be able to take a feat every time they would get a stat bump.  They can make their own custom background so they can select an appropriate trait and skills.  They can use 3e multiclassing to customize their character further.  They've said there would be an optional skill system that really let you customize your skills in detail.  We haven't seen that yet, but if that exists you might be able to spend points on individual skills.Someone who is a fan of 4e can likely choose a class and feature that best represents their tactical sensibilities.  They've already previewed the tactical version of the fighter who has dice that come back after a short rest that he can spent to activate maneuvers similar to 4e.  In addition to that, we know that Warlocks have spells that regenerate after a short rest and spells that are daily.  So they also have an at-will, encounter, daily setup.  There may also be a complete tactical module for all the classes in the future.  Though, that appeared to be something they were saving for a future product.At the moment, these 3 characters should be able to be played at the same table with no real problems.  So, I'd say that they've succeeded in that.As for uniting the player base and being the one edition to rule them all.  I doubt it.  But that's mostly because they were too late coming out with the game.  Many people are heavily entrenched in whatever game they are playing now.  I went to D&D Encounters for the last 2 weeks and there are still people playing 4e there despite the fact that the current season of Encounters is D&D Next only.  They told me they hated change and didn't want to switch simply because WOTC wanted them to.  They all started in 4e and its the only edition they know.  That's all they want to play.  They started one table of D&D Next.  The DM hadn't ever seen the playtest rules before minutes before he started the first session.  No one at the table had either.  We're 2 sessions in now and most of the players are heavily confused by D&D Next and don't understand how they are supposed to play without clearly delineated at-will, encounter, and daily powers.  A couple of pages of spells that they have to decide when to use is just too much for them.Meanwhile, my other friends who used to play Living Greyhawk with me are all heavily invested in Pathfinder Society to the point where if D&D Next is brought up to one of them he gets very angry.  I told him about the release date and price on the PHB and his response was "Well, there's $50 I don't have to spend at least.  How come you aren't coming to Pathfinder Society?"  This, despite the fact that I've told him I don't like Pathfinder about 10 or 15 times.</blockquote>

Verification