Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 5878528" data-attributes="member: 5100">I stayed with 1e because 2e was inferior (IMO). Rangers w/ TWF and no wizard spells? That's just crazy (still my opinion, BTW)! I did grab the 2e thief abilities, though. In truth, I ended up running a hybrid game, since the two editions were 99% compatible. I always considered 1e to be the base game, though.I spent some time playing WoD until just before 3e was released, so I missed all the 2.5e stuff. A friend was running a 2e game, so I joined. I advocated for the switch to 3e mainly because I wanted to play a sorcerer and ditch the stupid spell slots.I was all ready for 4e because of what a pain 3e is/was to GM. 4e did bring some great ideas, but it felt so hollow and, frankly, amateurish that I wasn't too upset when my group revolted after a few months. Eventually, I started up a 3.5 Rappan Athuk game -- after pitching 1e, Savage Worlds, Aces & Eights, and nWoD (the only one that got traction).If 5e turns out to capture the 1e feel, streamline play, and maintain some flavor, I'll be a huge fan. If not, I'll play out RA and then look for something w/o the D&D brand on it to finish out my gaming days.</blockquote>