Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jaeger" data-source="post: 8938112" data-attributes="member: 27996">Worlds without number is a good example of a 'middle ground' game of the style I'd be interested to see someone do with 5e.A streamlining and simplifying treatment, not full rules lite.It's not fundamental changes. It's the inevitable "small" changes that will add up.Much like the 3.0 to 3.5 changes. Technically 'backwards compatible', but different enough that most groups just moved whole hog to the way 3.5 did things. It was just easier for most groups to move on, rather than trying to keep reconciling the two slightly different rules sets. The same with PF1 vs. 3.5...That is why I view claims of 'backwards compatibility' as a big PR canard. (But evidently one that most RPG companies think is necessary for the player base.)I think that Pazio finally figured the canard part out, and moved on with PF2 - which has seemed to work out for them.Kobold needs to decide if they are going for true 100% compatibility; then do a pure 5e clone that just has some nomenclature changes, and make it actually fully backwards compatible.If Kobold is just going to claim 'backwards compatibility' in the 3.5/PF1 sense...  Then admit what you'd really like to do, and have the confidence to rebuild 5e from the ground up, actually fixing the known issues with the game that have come out over years of actual play.</blockquote>