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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6055561" data-attributes="member: 6696971">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=22779" target="_blank">Hussar</a>, I am sympathetic to your point of view but I think that you're going to be banging your head against your philosophical position outlined above throughout the entirety of both the playtest process and then with the finished product.  It is quite clear that the core system is going to be (primarily) predicated upon legacy constructs, form before function (not the absence of function...but form first), and a simulationist agenda with a smattering of new ideas (bounded accuracy, Ability Scores as saves, etc) and some streamlining.  Every editorial they have written and every piece of playtest material points in this direction.  Do you not think this is true?  It seems that asking them to "undefault" Vancian casting for Wizards, rather than making sure that they understand that (i) you want to be able to un-plug the Vancian system and (ii) seamlessly plug in a fully QCed <spell points, AEDU, etc> module, is a battle already lost.It is guaranteed that you are going to have to heavily mod your 5e game to get what you want.  Same thing with me.  I'm, at this point, just focusing my thoughts on what mods would be necessary to re-create and "betterize" my game of choice.  If those do not exist, and/or the core is incompatible (eg too much simulationist agenda embedded in the engine), then I will move on.  There certainly are viable competitors out there.</blockquote>

Verification