Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 8945892" data-attributes="member: 9254">I agree with all this. I wasn't a fan of 4e but not because it was "bad" but because it was not my preference. It was like butterscotch: I don't like butterscotch but I don't think anyone who likes butterscotch is weird. But d&d is "chocolate" and you can't swap butterscotch for chocolate.Changing the name would go a long way to separate it from other "flavors".Yep.. show editorial self control. All classes should be independently compelling on their own merits.As the person who plays skill characters 9 games out of 10, definitely. I kind of liked the weapons that leveled but they needed more flavor. I have played a lot of earthdawn where characters have to perform deeds and research to wake up items' powers.One of the problems with 4e was people saw it as more of a beer-and-pretzels game for one shots with nameless characters than a campaign. Being only 10 levels would not help that.Personally, I love high level resources because I run 3-7 year campaigns. Imo if they don't go to at least 20 at release, they won't have truly though through the mechanisms they want for leveling.</blockquote>