• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.

5E Gamehole Con Live Tweeting Perkins Panel

mosaic

Villager
I have two RPG websites bookmarked on my browser and on my phone - Paizo.com and ENWorld.org. I played D&D 1E, 3.0 and 3.5. Tried 4E, didn't like it. I'd been a subscriber to Dungeon and Dragon magazines, so I knew the caliber of Paizo's work, tried Pathfinder, and liked it. But if Pathfinder hadn't existed, I just woulda' kept at it with my 3.5 books and probably wouldn't have bought anything other than a few more old 3PP 3.5 pdfs. There's no way I would spent any money on 4E after I bought the first 3 core books. And, most likely, if I'd been unable to find a 3.5 community to keep playing with, I probably would have left RPGs for good. So it wasn't just a choice between 4E and Pathfinder, and if there were no such thing as Pathfinder I would have played 4E. I would have left the hobby, and so would a lot of other people I know (mostly people of my age group who have been playing off-and-on since 1E). The community may be fractured, but that wasn't caused by Paizo. I'd say it had a lot more to do with WotC putting out a product that a lot of people didn't like and having business model that intentionally broke with a past that me and a lot of other old grognards identified with. I don't have any animosity toward WotC, I just made a choice to take my business elsewhere, and certainly none towards 4E or 5E players - good for you, I hope enjoy it, the more of us in this hobby the better. ENWorld has always been great, I've always come here for industry news, less so for rules discussions now because ENWorld's discussions are more D&D-focused than Pathfinder, but that's fine, I'm still here. Heck, I chipped in to rebuild the server after the Great Crash. In the end, I think diversity and competition is good for the hobby and the industry. More out there to try, and I'll support the ones I like, regardless of the brand name. I might even buy the 3 5E core rule books one of these days... but only to mine for ideas for my Pathfinder game. ;)
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
No doubt they would make great stuff. And I would LOVE to see Paizo create 5e content...but i don't want Paizo to take the game and make Pathfinder 2.
Paizo should already have Pathfinder 2.0 in mind. Their game is bloated right now. The main reason my group was open to 5E D&D is the rules bloat and power creep in Pathfinder. It reached a point where the game was trivial for the players and nightmarishly legalistic. Even my players were having trouble figuring what actions they used in a given round. Each new round of books adds more options with usually one vastly superior option that power gamers latch on to that makes DMs sigh and throw their hands up in defeat. I still consider their creative team top notch and I hope a new OGL entices them into 5E adventure design. My early experience with Hoard of the Dragon Queen has not convinced me that that WotC will ever be good at adventure design again. I'm used to a Paizo module that gives me a good story, a well-designed useable adventure, a bestiary with 4 to 6 monsters, a section on some aspect of the game world, and a story.

WotC thinks that customers accustomed to a Paizo adventure module with all that extra stuff are going to be happy with a single adventure module that only includes the adventure? Strange to me. If your competitor takes a spot you've held for decades, you should maybe take a look at what they're doing. Even though a WotC adventure may cover two Paizo AP modules in terms of level advancement, the extras in a Paizo AP add so much more to a DMs inventory. Modules are mostly purchased by DMs. WotC would be smart to think in similar terms.

A DM is going to buy this module to run. So a module is a chance for WotC to incorporate DM material into a single book with a useable adventure. It was a very smart marketing choice by Paizo to enhance the value of an adventure module for a DM, who is always looking for new information on the world he might be running and new monsters. I hope WotC gets with the program and uses the Adventure Modules to add DM material they might not put out in another book due to sales volume. It will enhance the value of the module and make DMs feel they're getting more bang for their buck.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
Pathfinder only came about because WotC left 3.5 behind. If they stick with 5e and develop and evolve it instead, I doubt another Pathfinder could ever arise.
It may have come about because WotC left 3.5 behind, but it grew into the big dog by putting out great material and making smart marketing decisions. That is what ultimately won the day.

That competition for the gaming dollar is still there. I think it makes games better. WotC has to put out good material or they'll falter. They have to make smart marketing decisions and manage their finances efficiently. I don't see why they wouldn't welcome the competition, if they're up to making a high quality product that can compete. I think WotC should be monitoring 5E closely ready to make changes if major problems pop up with the game, just like Paizo did in the beginning and does to some degree now.

So far my group and I like 5E. Our money for the moment is moving from Paizo to 5E. If WotC falters, we'll look elsewhere. Our one concern right now is adventures. We're very used to high quality adventures from Paizo. Hoard of the Dragon Queen is not up to par. I understand this is their first adventure written when the rules are not complete. So they get a bit of a pass on this one. Now that they know their rules, newer adventures will hopefully be up to the competition. I'll start buying Paizo modules in a heartbeat if they produce 5E modules and the WotC modules remain subpar. Though right now I'm having some fun converting some true classics like Keep the Borderlands.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
no it's not. It made for a far worse edition war over the last 5 years, and even made the overall community more fractured and tribal.
That's your opinion. Paizo has a strong community board. Just because you didn't go there, doesn't mean an equally strong community didn't exist. Paizo community boards full of people that were having fun, enjoying each other's company, and gaming.

BS... yes Piazo does a good job but lets not pretend that if they had to start from scratch instead of a prebuilt game it would be just as good. those deep pockets built the frame for piazo... they were just WotC deep pockets.
It wouldn't have had the installed player base. No new game will. Paizo built it up and beat the big company that arrogantly believed they could do whatever they wanted and no other company could compete with them. Let's be real here. Hasbro/WotC thought they could not be touched. They acted arrogantly and without regard for their players. Paizo instead catered to their players. I was glad to see that in business, the company that treats their customers better and designs a better product still wins in an open competition.

so would I.... just in a limited way.
It probably will be limited. I don't care either way. WotC/Hasbro should never be able to take the position that their customers don't matter as they did with 4E. They were told by players like myself and many, many others that their handling of magic was unacceptable. We did not tell them that magic needed to be as powerful as prior editions. But they were told that the weak sauce 4E magic system wasn't going to fly with those of us that loved playing arcane and divine casters, and what's his name...Andy something...told us we didn't know what we were talking about.

I'm sorry, but I feel very vindicated. Maybe that game designer didn't deserve all the anger directed his way, but he was their face man. He was telling us all his decisions were gold. I am glad to see that he was wrong. I've been playing this game a long time. I felt driven away by WotC/Hasbro and the D&D brand. Not by choice, but by a company telling me I didn't matter and I didn't know what I'm talking about.

I know looking at the 5E magic system, this is a much better compromise than what they did in 4E. Yes, magic isn't as powerful. I'm ok with that. But it does still have power and a strong place in the game. A 9th level spell still seems like a 9th level spell that can do amazing things. That's what I'm looking for in a magic system. I don't need to overpower every encounter or be some walking god. I want to do some absolutely world altering magic at high level. I want to feel like a powerful user of magic. 5E has brought that back. Not to the degree of 3rd edition which I'll admit was over the top, but similar in feel to maybe 2nd or 1st edition. I can live with it. It might need a bit of shoring up as more test data comes in, but for the most part it looks good.

I'm glad to see D&D building a system that has done extensive work to please the customer. Paizo had unprecedented interaction with their customer base and community. I hope WotCs team is similar leading to a strong competition that leads to better customer outcomes.
 

Gundark

Villager
I'm sorry, man. But if a game ruined your friendships with people (multiple people? really?), that's on you and your friends, not the game. A game does not have that power. It's just a game.

This community was fractured by the Edition Wars. A full half of the community relocated to paizo.com in a fairly short period. I don't blame Pathfinder; I blame myself for letting it happen. It has been a long 5 years rebuilding.
I can confidently say that in my case, if it hadn't been Pathfinder, it would have been Savage Worlds. As it is, even with Pathfinder, it was almost Savage Worlds anyway.

-The Gneech :cool:
It was Savage Worlds for me
 
sigh...here we go again...

Let me say before I reply that I wonder if I went back and quoted every OGL or Piazo Vs WotC thread over the last 6 years if anything has changed... probably not.

That's your opinion. Paizo has a strong community board. Just because you didn't go there, doesn't mean an equally strong community didn't exist. Paizo community boards full of people that were having fun, enjoying each other's company, and gaming.
yes, Paizo has a community board...so did 4e, so does rifts...so does everything else... that doesn't mean anything. And for the record, well my friend ross was argueing against Piazo... I was in the playtest, and on that board. You know what I found?

I found Piazo didn't want to hear "Hey look bonus feats and spells aren't anywhere near balanced as class features" or "Hey look at book of nine swords, and tacticle feats" or "hey maybe we can tone down the cleric so he can't buff as well", or "I really like warriors with battlefield control"

It wouldn't have had the installed player base. No new game will. Paizo built it up and beat the big company that arrogantly believed they could do whatever they wanted and no other company could compete with them. Let's be real here. Hasbro/WotC thought they could not be touched. They acted arrogantly and without regard for their players. Paizo instead catered to their players. I was glad to see that in business, the company that treats their customers better and designs a better product still wins in an open competition.
thank you so much for coming here and showing exactly what I mean so much better then I could without you...
Hasbro/WotC thought they could not be touched. They acted arrogantly and without regard for their players.
this is THE EXACT PROBLME, THIS ANTI WOTC BULLYING!!!!
first of all Drop the Habro BS, it is WotC, Hasbro bearly notices the D&D dide...
second WotC did nothing ARROGANT unless you consider trying to solve problems and make a game arrogant...
third please show me anything involving wotc ever "without regard for their players"



It probably will be limited. I don't care either way. WotC/Hasbro should never be able to take the position that their customers don't matter as they did with 4E.
BULL... they just made something new, something people where screaming for. Infact if they had not made 4e many of my friends would have left already... because those of us that did like 4e where the ones screaming obout liner fighter and quadratic wizards and CODzilla... you know who ignored us... PIAZO!!!!
They were told by players like myself and many, many others that their handling of magic was unacceptable. We did not tell them that magic needed to be as powerful as prior editions. But they were told that the weak sauce 4E magic system wasn't going to fly with those of us that loved playing arcane and divine casters, and what's his name...Andy something...told us we didn't know what we were talking about.
yes how dare us players who want fighters and rogue to be as powerful and fun as wizards get a say... that you again for this time the passiza aggressive bullying...
they were told that the weak sauce 4E magic system wasn't going to fly
they were also told FOR YEARS that caster rule/martial drule would not fly!!!

I'm sorry, but I feel very vindicated. Maybe that game designer didn't deserve all the anger directed his way, but he was their face man. He was telling us all his decisions were gold. I am glad to see that he was wrong. I've been playing this game a long time. I felt driven away by WotC/Hasbro and the D&D brand. Not by choice, but by a company telling me I didn't matter and I didn't know what I'm talking about.
funny because this whole post is telling people who disagree with you exactly what you claim you hated...

I know looking at the 5E magic system, this is a much better compromise than what they did in 4E.
I hope so, but I still see myself playing more and more spell casters... and maybe never getting a full warlord...


Yes, magic isn't as powerful. I'm ok with that. But it does still have power and a strong place in the game. A 9th level spell still seems like a 9th level spell that can do amazing things. That's what I'm looking for in a magic system. I don't need to overpower every encounter or be some walking 0god. I want to do some absolutely world altering magic at high level. I want to feel like a powerful user of magic. 5E has brought that back. Not to the degree of 3rd edition which I'll admit was over the top, but similar in feel to maybe 2nd or 1st edition. I can live with it. It might need a bit of shoring up as more test data comes in, but for the most part it looks good.
I hope your right... but right now 5e is a hard sell for a lot of people who loved 4e

The split would have a occurred regardless.
yes, just not as bad...


Why? Because of the OGL, but not just because of the OGL.
The OGL let things get to a point that without it never could have

D&D 4e was doomed by the fact it was not D&D except for the brand. Didn't matter how good a game it was. In fact 4e woes had little to do with its quality.
I want to scream everytime I see this... I mean it...
this is madning, here when we are talking about D&D 4e has as much right to be called true D&D as any other edition... it is a role playing game, it is a fantasy setting, and it has all the D&D bells and whistles... it is well balanced and innovative and full of both good and bad ideas. so as long as people out there keep saying it isn't D&D there will be arguments... and this is insane...
For the first time in the history of the D&D brand the fanbase had the choice of opting out of a new edition.
ding... yes for the first time in history... and the worst edition war... gee atleast coralation if not causation (I speculate causation but realistly there is no way to prove one or the other)

And they did in numbers, Paizo happened to be the 3.5 publishers that was able to take most advantage of the situation.
by fuiling nerd rage and cashing in on it... why yes they did...

But it would have happen regardless of whether Paizo existed or not because D&D 4e was a completely different game than 3.5e
4e was no more different then 3.5 then 3.0 was from 2e...

so again we have 2 editions with major overhauls (2e-3e and 3.5-4e) both had major heated debates. both had early adaptors and early detractors. both were good games written to address complaints. What was different? well in 2000 WOtC was the only game in town, so it was stay with a system not in print or update... plenty of stories here on enworld include people staying with 2e for years but finally coming over to 3e when games were hard to find or just wanting new books, and then after trying 3e and "putting up with it" growing to like it. but in 2008 something was different, a company was able to keep 3.5 alive, and channel the nerd rage (the same edition wars that always happened) and the tribalism was WORSE... just look at these 2 threads I am replying to... it isn't "I like X edition more then Y edition" it's:

Let's be real here. Hasbro/WotC thought they could not be touched. They acted arrogantly and without regard for their players.
and
4e was doomed by the fact it was not D&D
this is what the OGL wrought...






The legacy of the OGL is
1) Large bloat of a mix of good, bad, awesome, and oh my god awful products that DMs had to wade through
2) Companies that instead of innovating (and some of them proved to be much better at that later) just kept making d20 stuff
3) the worst edition war in the games history
4) Tribalism that may never go away

Where there good things...Yes
Where there bad things...Yes
Did the bad out weight the good... In my opinion by a ton.
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
Chris Perkins said:
It is our intention to bring back the OGL. We just don't know when we are going to do it yet.
That is not a weasel-wordy statement. Not "something like" the OGL. Not "how we are going to do it." Not "something for fans." This is basically a statement that they want to bring back the OGL, and it's only a matter of time (as far as they know at the moment).

That is very exciting. And Ryan Dancey needs to stop being right about stuff because it is getting creepy. ;) It makes sense with their story focus, too. Anyone can make an Elf Book, but only WotC can make a new Temple of Elemental Evil adventure, or a new Planescape product or whatevs.

I know last time they discussed their plans, there was a concern about "quality" that people took to mean that they wanted to control stuff that was associated with the brand a little more closely and avoid stuff like the glut. This would appear to indicate that either they've come to terms with not controlling the reigns tightly, or that they have a multi-pronged approach in the works (OGL + some licensing scheme perhaps?).

Frig yeah!
 

Gundark

Villager
That is not a weasel-wordy statement. Not "something like" the OGL. Not "how we are going to do it." Not "something for fans." This is basically a statement that they want to bring back the OGL, and it's only a matter of time (as far as they know at the moment).

That is very exciting. And Ryan Dancey needs to stop being right about stuff because it is getting creepy. ;) It makes sense with their story focus, too. Anyone can make an Elf Book, but only WotC can make a new Temple of Elemental Evil adventure, or a new Planescape product or whatevs.

I know last time they discussed their plans, there was a concern about "quality" that people took to mean that they wanted to control stuff that was associated with the brand a little more closely and avoid stuff like the glut. This would appear to indicate that either they've come to terms with not controlling the reigns tightly, or that they have a multi-pronged approach in the works (OGL + some licensing scheme perhaps?).

Frig yeah!
Re: Dancy being right. It's a small community, they talk to each other
 

Nebulous

Explorer
So far my group and I like 5E. Our money for the moment is moving from Paizo to 5E. If WotC falters, we'll look elsewhere. Our one concern right now is adventures. We're very used to high quality adventures from Paizo. Hoard of the Dragon Queen is not up to par. I understand this is their first adventure written when the rules are not complete. So they get a bit of a pass on this one. Now that they know their rules, newer adventures will hopefully be up to the competition. I'll start buying Paizo modules in a heartbeat if they produce 5E modules and the WotC modules remain subpar. Though right now I'm having some fun converting some true classics like Keep the Borderlands.
Right, there's so much classic stuff to convert i could spend the entire life of 5e just running old stuff i've never done. I'm looking at 1e Ravenloft right now, and someone already put together a 5e monster conversion! It's a no brainer for me, i will run it eventually. I hope Paizo makes a 5e line of stuff, and even if they didn't, having a conversion monster/NPC chart for one of their existing AP's would be a suitable substitute.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
sigh...here we go again...
No. Here you go again. I read your argument. It is weak, untrue, and I can already tell from the tone that you intend to hold your position absent evidence. Sorry, 4E was a poorly designed game that alienated a massive number of players. One of the main reasons was the magic system, which many of us told the designers was not going to cut it. The game should have been designed to make both sides happy, not one at the cost of the other. That 4E magic system was not going to make caster players happy. It wasn't a compromise, it was a complete destruction of casters to the point of near impotence. Never should have been stripped down that far or made that weak. Argue you it all you wish, but I'd bet money the poorly designed magic system was a major (top 2 or 3 reason if not number one) that 4E failed. Which is why 5E moved back in the other direction knowing that careful design of the magic system was about the only way they were going to regain a good portion of the player base that migrated. Magic in the D&D world is vitally important across every edition. Players of casters want magic to feel special, not a like a martial ability renamed and designed like it is a martial power. That was never going to work.

I know what I felt at the time. I know what WotC did. I know they were told not to go forward with the magic system as they had designed it. They failed because they did not listen to their caster player base that they vastly underestimated. We'll have to disagree on the reasons why because I will always feel that their handling of the magic system was their downfall. I know for a fact that it was what caused our group to switch. Half our group is caster-centric. That half rebelled strongly against 4E refusing to play the game. The martial-centric half liked what they saw in Pathfinder. We jumped ship soon after. I would not be surprised if a majority of groups were similar given the completely neutering of magic in 4E.

I can see a pointless argument born of any exchange between us. I will simply end this saying I hope this edition will satisfy players from the various camps that want a D&D system we can all live with. If D&D handles both martials and casters adequately, they will not open the door for another split. I think they will see more and more people return to the title that want something less complicated than Pathfinder, but with a more robust and interesting magic system than 4E.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
You missed the tense. That was in 2009. EN World is growing at a rate of knots since it rebuilt a couple of years ago. But thanks for the advice! :)
Glad to hear you're growing again. First site I came to when our group decided to give 5E a try. I still consider EN World the go to site for all things D&D.

Been probably 4 or 5 years, ever since the Pathfinder/D&D split, since I returned. I understood why you fully supported D&D as a business decision at the time. I could not abide 4E. EN World never became a go to site for Pathfinder material because Paizo's boards were well run and had developer interaction with a rules/FAQ forum they answered questions on. Nice to see you survived the split and still exist as a great site for gamers.
 

Nebulous

Explorer
I can see a pointless argument born of any exchange between us. I will simply end this saying I hope this edition will satisfy players from the various camps that want a D&D system we can all live with. If D&D handles both martials and casters adequately, they will not open the door for another split. I think they will see more and more people return to the title that want something less complicated than Pathfinder, but with a more robust and interesting magic system than 4E.
Just around here, i've already seen so many posts from people who say this is the first version of D&D they've bought in over 20 years, or people who say they're switching back from PF due to that game's bloat. I didn't think WotC could pull it off so well, but they did manage to create a widely appealing game.
 

Kaychsea

Villager
It's not that I can't understand not likeing it, it's the reason... if you said "I don't like balanced characters" or "The fights took too long" or "The skills were way too limited" or "I disliked narrative powers" or "Magic items felt boreing" I could get all of those (some of them I even agree with, since it was far from perfect) I don't understand YOUR complaint about rinse repeat...
You didn't see people rushing through their Day/Encounter/At Will cycle in every encounter they were allowed to? The dawn of the 15 minute day?

People are allowed to like what you don't and vice versa. I have no idea why people would eat Hershey bars but they seem to survive without me. Do I resent the fact that people like it? Of course not. There is no badwrongfun.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
Just around here, i've already seen so many posts from people who say this is the first version of D&D they've bought in over 20 years, or people who say they're switching back from PF due to that game's bloat. I didn't think WotC could pull it off so well, but they did manage to create a widely appealing game.
I was surprised how much I liked 5E. With 4E It definitely felt like WotC was shoving the change down our throat and telling those that didn't like it that they knew better than we did what was a better game. 5E feels like they truly did take the time to listen to all sides and design something that would hit the mark for a large majority. I freely admit I'm more of a caster player. But I don't need a magic system where I destroy everything and hog the spotlight. I understood the need to tone down the 3E magic system that had become more powerful than any other edition. 5E seems to have done that while still making magic creative, powerful, and fun. At heart most wizard-type players prefer magic that is creative over pure power. They want to be able to think outside the box when it comes to problem solving or turning the tide of battle. It makes the game more interesting for them. I'm finding I can be creative and effective with the 5E magic system, while not overshadowing any of the other classes. Wizard damage is a little light, but it was always a little light at low levels. I also figure with the changes in monster design such as using more lower level monsters paired with a high level monster will still allow AoE damage to be effective. 5E seems like they did a much better job figuring out how to make changes that toned down the overall power, while maintaining the feel of the game.

I really like the toned down magic items and gold. It's going to feel like something special to buy even a suit of Full Plate Armor in 5E. Finding a +1 magic sword feels like a big deal. I like the feeling of magic items being unique. Makes the game more like Lord of the Rings than a video game with tons of items being needed to play. Overall, 5E seems like a well-designed system so far.

Even the monster design with legendary and lair actions gets the creative DM juices flowing. You can finally make an evil priest enemy that can take advantage of his temple as a weapon or the evil artifact item his god gave him in a mechanically meaningful way. I spent some time designing a nasty evil priest with a temple that will make life most unpleasant for the players.
 

Morrus

Administrator
Staff member
This thread seems to have morphed into a full blown Edition War like it was still 2009 or something. Please tone it down.
 
again well talking about why I and others dis like the OGL, I have found myself defending 4e... ironicly enough proveing one of my problems... the tribal and split fan base caused by an edition never going out...


So I will ignore the last two hits on the edition war, and not defend 4e casters or WotC for listen to the #1 complaint of 3.5... I will go back to my OGL discussion.

The OGL started mostly good. It gave us a huge list of products. the problem is that there was no real way to control a huge influx of ideas. It lead to a bloat of good and bad that was hard for DMs to look into. Then as wotc started popping out more and more not srded material newer OGL products had to recreate or reimagine whole concepts(again at variable levels of success). The OGL also lead to much less innovations for years as D20 was slapped on everything (I was so glad that CoC and Deadlands learned that lesson and went back) In the end it gave a small company the ability to steal whole cloth the 3e engine and compete with 4e by egging on stupid edition wars(see this thread)
 

sidonunspa

Villager
[MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], I think I lost the momentum of the conversation and it seems it has carried on without me. A few thoughts to add into the mix.

I think a key point to consider is that Pathfinder, as someone stated up-thread, was possible because of a perfect storm - and a major part of that was simply the fact that a lot of people still loved 3.5 *and* disliked 4E. So while you create a causal chain of blame of OGL -> Pathfinder -> edition wars -> demise of 4E, you seem unwilling to include 4If E as part of that, that the game itself was somehow not involved in its own demise.

In other words, Pathfinder was possible largely because a lot of folks didn't like 4E. If we must assign blame--and I'm not saying we should--then 4E has to be part of the mix.

Anyhow, even if we play make believe and imagine Pathfinder never existing, do you think that 4E would have thrived? If it hadn't been Pathfinder, wouldn't it have been something else?

Simply put...... if 4e looked more like the Saga system of Star Wars (which looked like the logical progression of 3.X to 4.0) pathfinder would have found no foot hold..

4e was such a drastic departure from 3.X it kicked 3.X fans in the face.....

4e was a larger departure from 3.x then 3.x was from 2e... that tells you something

Now look at the reaction for 5e..... less of a departure from 2e then 3.X was......... and see how players are flocking back to it...

nuff said
 

sidonunspa

Villager
Now

Why is OGL a good thing for the game? one word... Innovation

there are ideas created by the d20 market which have found their way to 5e and made 5e better... for example, attributes as saves... thank you Castles and Crusades.

a active and growing OGL market using the 5e ruleset is nothing but good for the player base.... more ideas shared, the better your game is..

now that 5e has embraced the optional rules paradigm the possibilities are endless, you don't (as a GM) have to allow every optional rule in a new 3rd market book.. maybe you will find one or two that fit your campaign... maybe you will come across a new spell casting sub system that blows your mind with creative possibilities (Magus special abilities in Arcana Unarethed comes to mind and the idea of a unified spell list were spells are ranked on rarity instead of some fuzzy class Arcane/Divine divide... ya enplane bards healing again?)

the OGL is nothing but good all around

it's an exciting time in gaming again.... very cool to be here for it

BTW I posted that I knew of 5 gaming companies looking at doing 5e OGL material... make that 8 now... and a few of them are not no-name companies, don't expect fantasy flight craziness but some of the companies thinking about stepping into the ring may surprise you.
 
4e was such a drastic departure from 3.X it kicked 3.X fans in the face.....
nobody was kicked, or punched or harmed in any way... this is plain wrong info... it is the worst type of argument... one not even in good faith

4e was a larger departure from 3.x then 3.x was from 2e... that tells you something
I disagree, there is almost nothing incommon from 2e to 3e, 4e was less(all be it not much) of a change...


nuff said
always a great way to discus something...
 

sidonunspa

Villager
I disagree, there is almost nothing incommon from 2e to 3e, 4e was less(all be it not much) of a change...
I don't want to get into the mud on this one, but your very close to wrong on this.... my group playtested 3.X and jumped from Skills and Powers (2e product I still own a copy of)

the leap of faith was much shorter... classes >>felt<< the same, the math was simple to grasp (oh roll high on all of it) and spell casters felt the same (prep-spells and cast them.. ok prep them in the morning.. cast again)

4e stepped far away from the classic D&D paradigm by giving everyone the same type of "powers" at will, once encounter, once per day... someone coming from 2e would see almost no similarity between 4e and 2e... there were even significant race differences (gnome a monster what? dragon who?)

Think if it as going from Windows 98 to Windows 7.... compared to going Windows 98 to Windows 8.....

they are both windows.. but one feels familiar but the other feels like a new OS

No, I'm not saying 4e was a bad game... although the combats did last a little too long (but that was an easy tweak..) and the skill system felt shallow... but it had a lot less in common with its predecessors then any other version of the game.

which alienated a LOT of players... I use to run many of the conventions in miami.. I saw it first hand... the younger players eate it up, but almost all the older (2e or 1e players) gave it a few weeks and said "this is not D&D" and stopped playing... way before Pathfinder made its appearance.. many of them went back to playing 3.X (someone started running all the Living City adventures all over again for gods sake)

again.. I'm NOT bashing 4e.... it not a bad game, but it was a huge leap in design that changed... for many players.. the feel of the game... and for gamers the feel of the game is almost everything

why do you think 5e feels like 1e/2e?
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top