Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 4318179" data-attributes="member: 1106">See, this is where D&amp;D has all gone wrong IMO.&nbsp; I remember Willie Walsh going &quot;what the...&quot; on a visit to these boards with regard to AoOs in 3E.Dragonborn are an even bigger &quot;what the...&quot;.&nbsp; The number of Dungeon adventures with themes where these bags of arbitrary as PCs don't fit is large.&nbsp; The scope of what D&amp;D can support just got one heck of a lot narrower, unless you outright ban them.&nbsp; I don't like banning things, or ignoring things referenced in artwork and throughout the text - it's annoying.&nbsp; I'd much prefer they just got it right in the first place.I really think we'd have a better game if the flavour were up to Necromancer, Paizo or Kenzer.&nbsp; Unlike WOTC, they seem to get what makes the game tick, flavourwise, IMO.&nbsp; For me, at least, Mr Wyatt's work with regard to themes and imagery didn't work.*But it's too late now.&nbsp; Bring on 5E.*: Not entirely fair.&nbsp; I like the warlocks, and what's been done to rangers and paladins.&nbsp; Elves and dwarves are pretty good after their new coat of paint too.&nbsp; And my two favourite planes have come to the fore.&nbsp; And PoL is something I can get behind in places.&nbsp; The whole package is a bit lacking, though - it seems to lack synergy for me, and seems too arbitrary and specific in places.&nbsp; Why eladrin?&nbsp; Why dragonborn?&nbsp; What's up with &quot;warlords&quot;?&nbsp; Why LG and CE?&nbsp; But I can't really condemn 4E, because it looks one heck of a lot like the game I'd design from first principles if I was designing a D&amp;D game.&nbsp; Problem is, I junked my version of that too, because it didn't get the vibe and flavour right either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 4318179, member: 1106"] See, this is where D&D has all gone wrong IMO. I remember Willie Walsh going "what the..." on a visit to these boards with regard to AoOs in 3E. Dragonborn are an even bigger "what the...". The number of Dungeon adventures with themes where these bags of arbitrary as PCs don't fit is large. The scope of what D&D can support just got one heck of a lot narrower, unless you outright ban them. I don't like banning things, or ignoring things referenced in artwork and throughout the text - it's annoying. I'd much prefer they just got it right in the first place. I really think we'd have a better game if the flavour were up to Necromancer, Paizo or Kenzer. Unlike WOTC, they seem to [i]get[/i] what makes the game tick, flavourwise, IMO. For me, at least, Mr Wyatt's work with regard to themes and imagery didn't work.* But it's too late now. Bring on 5E. *: Not entirely fair. I like the warlocks, and what's been done to rangers and paladins. Elves and dwarves are pretty good after their new coat of paint too. And my two favourite planes have come to the fore. And PoL is something I can get behind in places. The whole package is a bit lacking, though - it seems to lack synergy for me, and seems too arbitrary and specific in places. Why eladrin? Why dragonborn? What's up with "warlords"? Why LG and CE? But I can't really condemn 4E, because it looks one heck of a lot like the game I'd design from first principles if I was designing a D&D game. Problem is, I junked my version of that too, because it didn't get the vibe and flavour right either. [/QUOTE]

Verification