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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GM Lent" data-source="post: 8220150" data-attributes="member: 6798775">It's funny; I had friends who refused to switch to 3e because they said it was too different a game, and I didn't understand that at all at the time. After all, I could still play my favorite type of character (an elven mage/thief, made possible in 3e by a sidebar in the DMG), so what was to worry about?But at this point I largely agree with them (and you). I think the WotC era has been a net positive for D&D, inasmuch as the game is still being made and played and is apparently more popular than ever, but I am not a fan of many changes it has wrought. I don't like a la carte leveling. I don't like every class leveling at the same rate. I don't like changing the way thri-kreen look. I don't like spontaneous casters at all ("spells known" is a concept I feel should be taken out back and shot then run over for good measure, at least without being tied to an ability like it was in 2e). The hyping of ideas like "dead levels" I found/find absurd.I don't really like video games, and on some level I resent D&D's (very necessary, TBH) shift to try and accommodate concepts that stem from such games to attract and retain folks who DO like them.I don't disagree with your Ship of Theseus point. I guess I just don't see it as being a problem. D&D as of the Greyhawk supplement in 1975 was a different game than the original publication. The evolution has been underway for a LONG time. I think the 2e/3e demarcation is one of the easiest to spot, maybe, but I think it was less severe than the shift from 3e to 4e in most respects.</blockquote>

Verification