Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jay Verkuilen" data-source="post: 7750659" data-attributes="member: 6873517">Well yeah, there's always selection bias or confirmation and your anecdote cancels mine out.... The things that those players highlighted were specifically the &quot;deck building&quot; aspect of 4E chargen and other similar things. You can certainly add it back in, but it's not really built into the game in a systematic fashion the way it was in 4E. There are no notable abilities or monsters that I can think of, at least off the top of my head. Yeah, definitely. The CB was a necessary evil, but evil it was. &nbsp; Yes, definitely. I found it pretty disconcerting at first, in a kind of &quot;uncanny valley&quot; kind of way, particularly the early books. The later ones made more sense but the PHB had this giant list of &quot;spells&quot; with levels that didn't line up to what we'd been used to seeing for literally ever (and now again). There were magic items in the PHB, many of which seemed to bear little or no resemblance to classic items. There were tons of new concepts, most of which had no precedent or clear root in the prior game: Milestones (aka a game incentive to keep adventuring), skill challenges (decent-ish idea poorly implemented), this whole new kinda sketched out but never realized world, dumped alignment system, magic items that have highly limited power usage, every character being alike in terms of being a Vancian spellcaster, power sources, .... It was like Ozzy releasing rerecorded and heavily reimagined versions of Mr. Crowley and Crazy Train. That's a pretty good summary. And a whole lot of older players did leave---witness the fact that another game that's built on the 3.X chassis Found a pretty lucrative Path to the market.... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jay Verkuilen, post: 7750659, member: 6873517"] Well yeah, there's always selection bias or confirmation and your anecdote cancels mine out.... The things that those players highlighted were specifically the "deck building" aspect of 4E chargen and other similar things. You can certainly add it back in, but it's not really built into the game in a systematic fashion the way it was in 4E. There are no notable abilities or monsters that I can think of, at least off the top of my head. Yeah, definitely. The CB was a necessary evil, but evil it was. Yes, definitely. I found it pretty disconcerting at first, in a kind of "uncanny valley" kind of way, particularly the early books. The later ones made more sense but the PHB had this giant list of "spells" with levels that didn't line up to what we'd been used to seeing for literally ever (and now again). There were magic items in the PHB, many of which seemed to bear little or no resemblance to classic items. There were tons of new concepts, most of which had no precedent or clear root in the prior game: Milestones (aka a game incentive to keep adventuring), skill challenges (decent-ish idea poorly implemented), this whole new kinda sketched out but never realized world, dumped alignment system, magic items that have highly limited power usage, every character being alike in terms of being a Vancian spellcaster, power sources, .... It was like Ozzy releasing rerecorded and heavily reimagined versions of Mr. Crowley and Crazy Train. That's a pretty good summary. And a whole lot of older players [I]did[/I] leave---witness the fact that another game that's built on the 3.X chassis Found a pretty lucrative Path to the market.... :p [/QUOTE]

Verification