Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZeshinX" data-source="post: 8316972" data-attributes="member: 6793656">Depends on the nature of the changes to the game for me.&nbsp; I started with 1e/2e (right around the transition).&nbsp; When 3e released, I was eager to switch, as I felt 1e/2e had a lot of pretty silly rules after having played it for a decade.&nbsp; Chief among them was the limitation of what race could be what class.&nbsp; The wholly backwards nature of multiclassing/dual classing.&nbsp; Various other &quot;just because&quot; rules or some variety of &quot;because balance&quot;.&nbsp; We also felt a certain same-yness within the classes.&nbsp; There was little to differentiate Bob Fighter from Jane Fighter from Steve Fighter.3e was quite welcome in that you could play what you wanted and there was nice ways to differentiate yourself within a class.&nbsp; Elf paladin?&nbsp; Done.&nbsp; Dwarf sorcerer?&nbsp; Go for it.&nbsp; Sure, some were better mechanically suited than others in certain classes, but it didn't matter, you could play what you wanted.&nbsp; It offered a more reasoned explanation for why certain rules and/or limitations existed (not perfectly of course, but far better than 1e/2e's approach of &quot;just because&quot;).&nbsp; This was all welcome to me, as I had yet to really understand that had I wanted to, I could have houseruled all those (what I call) nonsense rules in 1e/2e.Shortly after the 3.5 release, I started to become far less enamoured with the 3.x ruleset.&nbsp; We kept playing it, as it was D&amp;D (and my players did NOT miss THAC0 and had no desire to go backwards), but we quickly began to realize 3.x was math porn, replete with pointless bonuses and far too &quot;build-y&quot;.&nbsp; We still loved playing whatever you wanted to play, but even there, it was evident if you did not go down a very specific path (i.e. selecting optimal feats/skills, etc)...you were essentially nerfing your character.&nbsp; That latter, &quot;build-y&quot; bit bothered us far less though than the absolute insanity of the math of the game.&nbsp; Adding and subtracting is easy, sure, but when you have so many bonuses/penalties being applied (and keeping track of them all)...it became un-fun.Then 4e happened.&nbsp; We took one look, played a bit, said &quot;Hell nope&quot; and went to Pathfinder (which only exacerbated the math porn/build-y nature of 3.x, but it was a far better option for us than 4e).&nbsp; We kept playing, but we did notice we played less overall.&nbsp; Of course we all wrote it off as just we're a lot older now, have families/more responsibilities, etc...but I sometimes wonder if the nature of the 3.x game also turned us a little off of it.During that time I was tinkering with the 2e rules on my own, working towards houseruling away the nonsense rules and such...and then 5e hit.&nbsp; We love it.&nbsp; It has its problems and is far from perfect, but it works very well.&nbsp; It's a compromise of 1e/2e and 3.x I find (with a sprinkle of 4e that is easily ignored, should you desire to).So, I'll switch editions if it offers something new enough and appeals, but not necessarily right away.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZeshinX, post: 8316972, member: 6793656"] Depends on the nature of the changes to the game for me. I started with 1e/2e (right around the transition). When 3e released, I was eager to switch, as I felt 1e/2e had a lot of pretty silly rules after having played it for a decade. Chief among them was the limitation of what race could be what class. The wholly backwards nature of multiclassing/dual classing. Various other "just because" rules or some variety of "because balance". We also felt a certain same-yness within the classes. There was little to differentiate Bob Fighter from Jane Fighter from Steve Fighter. 3e was quite welcome in that you could play what you wanted and there was nice ways to differentiate yourself within a class. Elf paladin? Done. Dwarf sorcerer? Go for it. Sure, some were better mechanically suited than others in certain classes, but it didn't matter, you could play what you wanted. It offered a more reasoned explanation for why certain rules and/or limitations existed (not perfectly of course, but far better than 1e/2e's approach of "just because"). This was all welcome to me, as I had yet to really understand that had I wanted to, I could have houseruled all those (what I call) nonsense rules in 1e/2e. Shortly after the 3.5 release, I started to become far less enamoured with the 3.x ruleset. We kept playing it, as it was D&D (and my players did NOT miss THAC0 and had no desire to go backwards), but we quickly began to realize 3.x was math porn, replete with pointless bonuses and far too "build-y". We still loved playing whatever you wanted to play, but even there, it was evident if you did not go down a very specific path (i.e. selecting optimal feats/skills, etc)...you were essentially nerfing your character. That latter, "build-y" bit bothered us far less though than the absolute insanity of the math of the game. Adding and subtracting is easy, sure, but when you have so many bonuses/penalties being applied (and keeping track of them all)...it became un-fun. Then 4e happened. We took one look, played a bit, said "Hell nope" and went to Pathfinder (which only exacerbated the math porn/build-y nature of 3.x, but it was a far better option for us than 4e). We kept playing, but we did notice we played less overall. Of course we all wrote it off as just we're a lot older now, have families/more responsibilities, etc...but I sometimes wonder if the nature of the 3.x game also turned us a little off of it. During that time I was tinkering with the 2e rules on my own, working towards houseruling away the nonsense rules and such...and then 5e hit. We love it. It has its problems and is far from perfect, but it works very well. It's a compromise of 1e/2e and 3.x I find (with a sprinkle of 4e that is easily ignored, should you desire to). So, I'll switch editions if it offers something new enough and appeals, but not necessarily right away. [/QUOTE]

Verification