Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="R_J_K75" data-source="post: 8841405" data-attributes="member: 6921294">This is the most frustrating thing to me with edition changes. I feel it's unnecessary in most cases. I understand it was somewhat necessary in 3E when they introduced new game mechanics but even then, I think they could have kept some terminology from AD&D and carry them over to 3E. A good example is non-weapon proficiencies were changed to skills, which IMO didn't need to happen. I think sometimes they make these types of changes to tell the fanbase "look this really is a new edition". They can change how a rule works, is applied and resolved all they want but if they re-use the same terminology from previous editions, it makes the learning curve easier for older players. I've seen some new terminology in the playtest packets, (at least I didn't recognize them), which concerns me a little.My opinion is anything they can do to streamline the rules will make the game better. I might even prefer if the core rules were very basic, with optional rules included in 3 cores at the time of release.EDIT: The game definitely needs to evolve over time, which it has, and is so Im willing to take the good with bad changes or I always have the option to just ignore the 1D&D if I dont like it.</blockquote>