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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JoeGKushner" data-source="post: 5629539" data-attributes="member: 1129">I would rather see content that expands the game.For example, the introduction of firearms.Early editions of D&D were so open that you could use them to emulate a wide number of genres and games within your own sand box.Later editions of the game focused on D&D being... well, D&D. The ability to make a few tweaks or modifications to get a certain feel went out the window and whole swatches of rules had to be switched out or blatantly ignored.Imagine 4e trying to pick up some of the themes of 2e with Historical Resource books. With the current class structure, I can't see that happening.Ed used to be a prolific Dragon magazine author. His spells and magic items were things that might not be for every campaign, but they were different and charming and unique. 4e, so constrainted by its own pathos that balance is the matra, cannot cope with those funky mechanics and so, ignores them.I'd love for Dragon on the DDI side to start doing monthly spells or monsters again. But because spells are the new normal and everyone has them, and they're all in balance, any time a class gets support its a new spell. It's not quite the same thing.In addition to opening up the guts of the game, I'd love to see them support the game that already exists with oh, say, adventure modules in print that cover all ranges of the game.I've love to see them expand on Epic not only in terms of content, but in what it means. They so half baked Epic as being about saving the Multiverse and deities and what not, they've completely turned their back on some of the kingdom building and other enjoyable elements that came to the fore front of 'high' level D&D in earlier editions (name lever anyone.)I don't think WoTC can easily get themselves out of the corner that they have painted themselves into and then fortitied.</blockquote>

Verification