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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sbarbe" data-source="post: 4289392" data-attributes="member: 6056">Yep.  I've already decided to continue with 3e/Pathfinder when it comes  out.The problem is that they are calling it Dungeons and Dragons.  I will be the first to admit that my dissatisfaction with the new rules comes largely from the goring of many of the sacred cows of previous D&D rulesets, but I also object to moving the entire focus of the rules to the lowest common denominator of tactical combat.I have played a multitude of fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, rogues and almost any character you care to name, and the only times I have ever been bored have been when playing with bad GM's.  One of the basic truths of Roleplaying is that a good GM can make a bad system fun and a bad GM can ruin even the best system.  And if the Wizard is struggling with his possible options, he is not very good at playing a wizard and needs to put more time and effort into his preparation before the game instead of doing it at the table.  One of the responsibilities that you take on when playing a spellcaster is doing the vast majority of your prep work out of game so that you don't take time away from the group for it.  Playing a spellcaster is significantly more complex than playing a fighter, and it requires a correspondingly higher amount of time and level of effort to make sure that you are prepared. Yep.It is mine and every other D&D players understanding of magic through 3 previous rulesets and countless novels, spinoff products and imitators for over 30 years, so I feel justified in considering it a common perception.  I have always felt free to change anything I don't like in a ruleset, but I am not always a GM, so yes, it irks me when I might have to play in someone else's game where it would be enforced as written (or simply not possible).  I can indeed look the other way on it, but it seems silly to have changed it, since the only real reason for it is that it is not really a tactical combat effect, which is all you really get out of powers.I suppose my real point here is that I dislike the over-riding focus on tactical combat to the detriment of utility/misc spells and powers.  I also feel that the only reason to abbreviate the selection of classes and spells available in the initial release is to cash in on the sale of more product in the future that contains things they should have included in the initial release, and I object to the profiteering nature of that.  I've spent thousands of dollars on D&D products over the years, they don't need to shaft me in order to make money off of me, but apparently they are determined to do so.</blockquote>

Verification