Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kabouter Games" data-source="post: 6717902" data-attributes="member: 6788812">Yeah, this. Frankly, the only thing I miss is the 1E AD&D UA Cavalier. I loved loved LOOOOOVED playing those. I'd play one in a second in 5e. I haven't looked, but I'm sure there's a way to spec out a 5e Fighter with feats to accomplish that.You could fill a book with what I don't know about Warlords and Psions and Swordmages or whatever, so I don't miss them. I've only skimmed this thread, so I don't know all of what's been discussed. What I have seen is quite a lot of butthurt about 5e supposedly gathering everyone under One Big Tent.* To which I say, "Aw, get over it."Some of us said from the instant they saw that lofty goal, "It ain't gonna happen. It never can happen." At best they'd make something that satisfied no "true fan" of a previous edition. Why? Because the editions were too different. The game completely changed when character generation went from class-based with lots of classes to skill-and-feat-based, with basically four classes you can customize ad infinitum. That's why you can't really turn a 5e Fighter into a satisfactory Warlord: The Warlord wasn't a class, it was an assembly of skills and powers and feats chosen to have a specific flavor.  More importantly, those games appeal to different people differently. Some people enjoy meticulous character builds. Some don't. Personally, I'm in the latter camp, which is one reason 5e appeals to me so much. When it comes to bringing the previous editions together, the developers came closest to the crotchety old farts like me, who remember rolling up characters in 5 minutes on a sheet of notepaper. You can do that again. That's ... whoa. I never thought I'd see the day. The people I see/hear bitching most about 5e are the 3e-PF-4e players. I find that interesting (and kind of cool to see I was right).Anyway, I'm rambling. Sorry.I think this "I want this class" or "I want that class" isn't about anything broken in the game. It's pretty clear to me, from comments on these fora, that it's about validation: I want this thing, and you have to give it to me! I don't know I hold with that. They don't owe you or I anything. They gave you a complete game. Moreover, they gave you a complete game which you can modify to make your own. Perhaps those who are pushing for what they want aren't playing the game for them, the game they like. That's not to say they don't have the right to urge the WizKids to come up with content which more engages their interest. That's only to say that they already have a game which has in it what they like. Isn't it less aggravating to just keep playing that game? That's why I'm a fan of splatbooks. Make them all "canon" or "cool for Adventurer's League" or whatever, let individual DMs decide whether or not to permit at their table, and roll on. That's what we did with the Great Puking of 2e splatbooks in days of yore, and it worked out.Hey, WizBro peeps, if you're listening, here's a word of advice: I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone. Sometimes I wish we were back in the early 1990s, where all we had was writing letters to TSR or Dragon Magazine. The noise:signal ratio is out of control. If I were in your shoes, if I had to deal with all the kvetching, I'd have topped myself yonks ago.* As well as BADWRONGFUN. I don't even know how to approach that.</blockquote>

Verification