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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenmarable" data-source="post: 4167166" data-attributes="member: 40359">I won't speak for him, but only for myself and say that backwards compatibility is a big deal for me. I have lots of books I've barely used and want to keep using them. Going fully with 4e makes that more difficult (not impossible, but difficult and I don't have time for or interest in difficulty while preparing my games).Also, from the previews and design discussion I've seen so far (since that's all I have to go on), I really like the mindset they had when trying to solve some of the problems, but I don't really like a lot of the solutions.* So far what I like about 4e is outweighed by what I don't like about it. With 3.5, my likes still far outweigh my dislikes. So I'm house ruling my 3.5 games with a lot of 4e style rules, but it's that "3.5 with some 4e style rules", not "4e in disguise". At this moment, it looks much easier to get the game I want by applying some 4e to 3.5 rather than trying to apply some 3.5 to 4e. But that's just me, and I'm not trying to convert others, just explain why some 4e style material might be nice, but a lot of us still want to stick with 3.5 regardless.* That's "don't like" as in "I don't like mint ice cream" sort of personal preference, not "I don't like getting kicked in the crotch" or "I don't like Jar Jar Binks because he's lame" which are far closer to being universal facts. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification