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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5693047" data-attributes="member: 2205">Curiously, I think the worst offender in this regard was the change from 3E to 3.5.  With 4e, the game was significantly enough overhauled at a fundamental level, that you didn't have all these carryover associations.  With 3E and 3.5--heck, we still sometimes can't remember if a rule belonged to one or the other, or what the "correct" rule is for the game that we purport to be playing.  And with few exceptions, we've been playing 3.5 non-stop since it was released.  And although I've mostly made my peace with 3.5 by now, I'm still somewhat bitter about the change, which I think was completely unnecessary, which broke as many things as it fixed, and which changed a good many things in ways that were neither better nor worse--just different, so that you couldn't remember what the rule was anymore.Also curiously, a big part of what eventually won me over were the splatbooks, which were greatly improved from their 3E counterparts.Also curiously, I think the exact same problem exists for the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder, although the market in general certainly doesn't seem to agree with me.  If Pathfinder eventually wins me over, which has more to do with whether or not our group decides to change over than anything else, it'll be all the tracks and a la carte options within the classes that'll eventually convince me that it might possibly be an improvement after all instead of just change for change's sake.If Disney can make a series of Aladdin movies and more recently a Prince of Persia movie, then certainly Hasbro can remake Al-Qadim and have it succeed in the marketplace if its a quality product.  All this fear about it being racist, or not sensitive enough, or whatever, seems more like paranoia than reason to me.</blockquote>

Verification