Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 7588399" data-attributes="member: 2629">(edit - this was in reference to crassballs post prior to that threat being merged into the 5E trashing post)...I find it strange that someone would bother to hunt down a site for discussing RPGs and make their first post be about how much they hate the game.&nbsp; I mean, he speaks like he has played prior editions, but this is the first time he makes a post on Enworld?&nbsp; Very odd...Regardless, most people playing 5E prefer it to prior editions.&nbsp; It isn't perfect, but we prefer this package to the 4E, 3.5, 3E, 2E, AD&amp;D, BECMI, and Pathfinder options.&nbsp; A few might prefer other editions, but are stuck with what their group wants to play.&nbsp; There are a lot of great things about the game... How do I know this?&nbsp; Because they're not idiots and they continue to play it despite having the books for prior editions.As for the concerns regarding what makes a druid's spells different than a mage's, ranger's, sorcerer's or paladin's lists?&nbsp; Well, there is a lot more to a class than just a spell list as a starting point.&nbsp; However,&nbsp; while the druid, wizard, ranger, paladin and sorcerer all have some overlap, they also have some spells that are relatively unique to their class that make them stand out.&nbsp; After playing several wizards, clerics, and druids - as well as some rangers, bards, sorcerers, warlocks, eldritch knights and arcane tricksters - they do feel different from each other.&nbsp; Heck, due to the limitations on spell selections, most PCs within each of these classes feels different.&nbsp; In my experience, howeve, the rule set usually isn't what makes a great game.&nbsp; While a bad ruleset can ruin a game, it is actually the players and GM that differentiate a great game from a mediocre game - not the rules.&nbsp; This game design is certainly good enough to allow for phenomenal games - I've played in many.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 7588399, member: 2629"] (edit - this was in reference to crassballs post prior to that threat being merged into the 5E trashing post)...I find it strange that someone would bother to hunt down a site for discussing RPGs and make their first post be about how much they hate the game. I mean, he speaks like he has played prior editions, but this is the first time he makes a post on Enworld? Very odd... Regardless, most people playing 5E prefer it to prior editions. It isn't perfect, but we prefer this package to the 4E, 3.5, 3E, 2E, AD&D, BECMI, and Pathfinder options. A few might prefer other editions, but are stuck with what their group wants to play. There are a lot of great things about the game... How do I know this? Because they're not idiots and they continue to play it despite having the books for prior editions. As for the concerns regarding what makes a druid's spells different than a mage's, ranger's, sorcerer's or paladin's lists? Well, there is a lot more to a class than just a spell list as a starting point. However, while the druid, wizard, ranger, paladin and sorcerer all have some overlap, they also have some spells that are relatively unique to their class that make them stand out. After playing several wizards, clerics, and druids - as well as some rangers, bards, sorcerers, warlocks, eldritch knights and arcane tricksters - they do feel different from each other. Heck, due to the limitations on spell selections, most PCs within each of these classes feels different. In my experience, howeve, the rule set usually isn't what makes a great game. While a bad ruleset can ruin a game, it is actually the players and GM that differentiate a great game from a mediocre game - not the rules. This game design is certainly good enough to allow for phenomenal games - I've played in many. [/QUOTE]

Verification