NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6095743" data-attributes="member: 6688937">This is a really good question. For myself, I have come to the conclusion that a good part of it (beyond annoyance at myriad fiddly bits and the slowness it induces) was the content of the lists, particularly the powers. (I didn't really love the presentation, but it was clear, so I'm not complaining about it.) It seems to me that the content was what provided that feel that I found so difficult to change. Its not a bad feel, but I don't want the same feel for every campaign. When I contemplated what I would need to do to change that feel...it came down to re-writing all the lists. (or at least editing them.)However, I actually think that actually hurts the case for designing 5e like 4e. So, if we imagine writing our "AD&D" version of 4e, what do we change? -- the lists. The same for every edition/playstyle. Then you've got one book (or set of lists, anyway) for each feel. And even though you've got a common mechanical structure, I don't think the classes would be very cross-compatible since they are generating different playstyles, part of which is the relative effectiveness of PCs. Which is not a problem they had when designing Essentials. Basically, the 4e architecture through its lists of powers/feats is very good (too good?) at enforcing a certain feel or playstyle. I think you'd risk putting fans of each playstyle into silos that didn't communicate with each other....which sorta defeats their purpose.That doesn't mean that I'm feelin' all happy-fuzzy about everything I've seen about the way Next is being built. (Is it a bad sign that this article elicits almost no strong feeling from me either way?)</blockquote>

Verification