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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 1004061" data-attributes="member: 5834">rePersonally, I tend to agree with Belen, not specifically concerning Merric's post. Most of the reviews do seem to have been written by people who seem unable or unwilling to voice any negative opinion concerning the upgrade. Even some of the folks on here who seem to think this upgrade is some of kind of immeasurable improvement really make me wonder about their ability to assess and analyze many of the changes that we know of. There are many bad changes from what I can tell. I don't just mean the ones I disagree with for stylistic and individual reasons like spell ranges and durationsThe two most vocal camps seem to be "I love it" and "I hate it". That really doesn't give a person much to go on. I am glad Monte gave an inbetween review highlighting what he felt was wrong and right about the game.I know I truly believe they went way overboard with the new DR system, though I like the concept. I really think its going to create a real "carrot on a string" effect when player's are choosing weapons and alignment.I am already having trouble with the new facing system when mapping. Movement for 10 foot sqare horsemen with 5 foot square men on the map is very strange. 40 foot square creatures take up an insane amount of space on a piece of graph paper. Moving those much larger squares around on a map with alot of combatants or through hallways is pretty wierd and unwieldy at times. I have been using the new facing system since I heard about it because I wanted to test it out. It is more unwieldy than the old system, though I do see what they were trying to do.The change to adamantine sounds hoky and seriously abuseable. If it truly does ignore the first 20 points of hardness, then we can assume that people with adamantine weapons can easily cut through stone or steel walls, steels bars on cell doors, iron doors, etc, etc. An adamantine weapon has now become the ultimate barrier destroyer which is real strange and hoky from a rules perspective and would make me less likely to ever allow Adamantine into my game because of how easily it can be abused.Those are probably my biggest problems with the revision from a pure rules perspective. I'll probably have more once I get the books. All my other problems with the system are more in terms of style. That varies from campaign to campaign, so its no use to complain.The things I like the best so far:The change to Harm, Haste and Disintegrate. They were abuseable spells that needed to be changed.The change to resizeable armor. From a purely stylistic viewpoint this was hoky. Armor that automatically resizes to fit any wearer should have never been.The new favored enemy ability of the ranger. Vast improvement so that everyone isn't picking dragon at first level so that it will be their highest bonus at level 20. It scales better and is more useful.Ability to change spells as sorcerer or bard. A great little change that was sorely needed so a sorcerer or bard could choose one of the constantly upgradeable spell lines like the Summon Monster line without penalty.More smites per day as a Paladin. It was really needed.Two-weapon Defense feat. Sounds like the one from the FR Sourcebook and I like that it is core now.The Mass Cure line of spells. A great idea that will be extremely helpful for higher level clerics.Overall, I think there are more good changes than bad. That is why I chose to upgrade. I have already purchased the books online. I can't wait to get them.I just grow a little tired of the its all good reviews that don't really assess problems that certain rule changes will cause in game. I'm sure we'll see more once the books are released.</blockquote>

Verification