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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Winterthorn" data-source="post: 3757450" data-attributes="member: 1702">Thank you for voicing skepticism similar to mine - couldn't have said it better myself! What I found really interesting was that not only has WotC back-stabbed it's own product, but I'm stunned to see threads and posts by people gleefully joining in the fray. While I have no quarrel with critique on technical details substantiated buy sound reasoning or solid, factual, hyperbole-free examples, I am really not impressed by opinionated trashing of 3rd edition to justify 4E. I think most people are sensible, but I've started avoiding even lurking in this forum because of the few who love to denigrate things as though they themselves know better than anyone else. (Yeah, I'm really irrated by some anti-3E attitudes.) Bashing 3E will not encourage/persuade me to invest in 4E. I'm definitely turned off by the the bashing in various quarters. 4E will only sell if it is actually a better system - so far we only have bits 'n' pieces. For me the bits 'n' pieces worry me more than excite me.I have a SW Saga rules set. As designed it seems to work well with the high-paced, action-oriented, roleplaying-lite flavour of Star Wars. But it wouldn't fit right, IMHO, if used for say, Star Trek which has a totally different "feel". I really hope that D&D does not become a fantasy version of SW! SW rules are flavour and "feel" unto themselves and I really don't want D&D to go that way. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> If the main thing changed was the magic system, that would reverberate throughout the entire rules set - and I'd accept that because that is a well-needed revolution IMHO. Vancian magic system, even though it has "worked" for many years, should be replaced in favour of something more logical that is commonly used in many, many fantasy novels as well as in other FRPG systems: magic usage exacting a cost of some kind - fatigue, soul corruption, power stones, or other ideas. The more devastating or reality changing the power, the higher the cost and/or risk of failure. This would make more sense than prep 'n' cast 'n' forget. I'd really like to see something like that implemented in 4E - a clear and thorough change.The stuff I'm seeing so far does not excite me. Raising the degree of magic or magic-like abilities in the game is particularly disturbing because I always felt D&D was supposed to be fantasy medieval world - a medieval reality infused with mysterious magic and the supernatural - as opposed to high fantasy free of any direct connection to our own medieval and mythical history. The latter is the stuff of WoW and Everquest and Zelda - if D&D is going in that direction, and there are hints that it will - I won't be buying. If I want World of Warcraft, Everquest, Zelda or whatever of that kind (I'm not saying they're bad for others to enjoy) I'll go to those sources themselves. Keep my D&D connected, at least at its base, to medieval history and its myths, legends and great stories please. More like LotR and less like Everquest. Now that I think of it, Eberon is an example of the style of high fantasy I don't like - but at least it is a campaign setting I can ignore and not a whole rules system I may have to forego. It is easier to add magic to a game system than to take it out - let us DMs have a say in the level of magic we are willing to allow in the games we run!So I'm not thrilled by the preliminary sales pitches so far either.  :\  I think that WotC should be able to make some detailed confirmations about some things real soon - if I were them I would have already. It could be skillfully done without undermining the final product pitches for 3.5.</blockquote>

Verification