Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 5243830" data-attributes="member: 326">Howdy Mr.Satan!...by the way is that a DragonballZ reference?I apologise to anyone who feels like that. But I couldn't keep designing for a system I no longer enjoyed, nor had any faith in, especially when there was something clearly superior - that solved pretty much all the relevant issues.Sorry to hear that. Its been my experience that when you play it a few times even naysayers grow to like it - I know thats not carte blanche, but still... You may want to investigate about the new D&D Essentials where flexibility seems to be the new keyword.Also different classes are no longer so cookie-cutter, something that WotC have been listening to people and have instigated from PHB3. I still don't understand why this is a bad thing...and to be honest they aren't actually that different. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> This to me is silly. The celestials and fiends are officially the best they have ever been. The idea that there can be angels of evil gods is really interesting. The differences between Demons and Devils are now FAR more pronounced. The treatment of the Demon Princes is basically the best it has ever been - by a country mile.Personally I don't personally like Daemons and Slaad in 4E, but then again I haven't liked the official Daemons since 1E and I already changed the Slaad in 3E anyway, tying them to the Far Realm....and I suspect my eventual treatment of angels will be a tad better. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ...anything the DM wants it to do. No longer is the story constrained to NPC mechanics. Rituals have seen to that.The mechanic really works well though and its not as if it doesn't have cinematic precedents...you think the hero is down and out only for them to get a second wind...I think thats a fair criticism of the initial books, but I think its definately a trend they have moved away from certainly this year and looking to the future products.I know - you can't please all the people all the time mate. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />This seems to be what D&D Essentials is geared towards...I know theres also the rumour of the Advanced Player's Handbook next year.4E isn't simply set in stone, its a lot more fluid than you think. WotC have listened to the initial criticism and adapted a lot of their material accordingly. People wanted less cookie-cutter classes...so they did that in PHB3 and D&D Essentials.People wanted more fluff and background in their monster books...so they did that in Monster Manual 3; easily one of the best all-round monster books I have ever read.People wanted less grind on Paragon and Epic tiers...so they slightly rejigged the math (making it also simpler in the process); early feedback seems to suggest its all tickity-boo again.People wanted more flexibility on monster design...so they added 'Monster Themes' in DMG2; a bit like quick, mini-templates.So really, a lot of the criticisms levelled at 4E a few years ago have been eradicated or are in the process of being eradicated.Thats ridiculous. I moved onto 4E because it can better realise my ideas and its not bogged down with superfluous baggage and shoddy math that falls apart when the game gets epic. I don't support myself with the money I make from these books (even when I eventually release them).Thats certainly regrettable, I would have wanted to release more 3.5E material back in the day. My enthusiasm outstrips my workrate unfortunately.Thanks...though I think its fairly apparent now (even if it wasn't before) I haven't sold out. It wasn't even that it took so much effort as much as the whole system was a mathmatical 'house of cards' just waiting to collapse.I think maybe because it was such a radical change that it has taken many fans a while to get comfortable with it.As for more interesting game designers (present company accepted I trust <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ), certainly the GSL has been a problem for some, theres no denying it.But for me, Pathfinder solved absolutely nothing (beyond keeping 3E going, which was obviously the main goal).Thanks for being so candid.</blockquote>

Verification