Community

Jan 30, 2013 -- 12:08AM, adembroski11 wrote:

I'm trying. I really am. I want to like it. I truly do... but I'm having a difficult time with it.

When 3.5 hit shelves and I saw the corrections made, I could hardly believe how... hmm... not "perfect", but... I guess 3.5 just hit every right note with me.

Now, given, I don't generally experience power creep in my games. I'm very controlling of my setting and I require anything not contained in specifically approved sources to be approved by me, and that approval requires a detailed explination of how this fits both thematically and mechanically in the game world I'm running. My homebrew is a very dark and gritty Dark Ages Britain inspired setting, so it's fairly easy to keep things from getting out of hand. So many of the things that people complain about from 3.5 don't apply to my campaign.

All that said, while I like it a lot better than 4E (which I despise with all my being), there's still some of that 4E aftertaste in this. 

I'm going to continue running one-shot sessions as play tests for a few months at least, but it's looking like I'm a 3.5 lifer. 

Hahahhahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahahhahahha.

I'm sorry, there is nothing of 4^th edition in 5^th edition. Any attempt to claim that means you either didn't play or read 4^th edition or that you haven't played or read 5^th edition.

Also nice one on the "I house ruled 3^rd edition into submission". Good for you, now maybe you can explain in a long post all of your many many house rules and suggest them as rules changes for 5^th edition, which is turning out to be more like 3.75^th edition.

Jan 29, 2013 -- 11:08PM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Ah, well that can be dicey territory to get into, I have seen a lot of posters espouse their biased opinions as "objectively" better.

(content removed)

Designing a game that runs on probability and math is not the same thing as painting a picture or writing a poem. Wrong decisions CAN be made.

EDIT: Violation of the Code of Conduct, found here - http://company.wizards.com/conduct - please don't refer to other posters as trolls or bait older edition fans.

As the thing is a playtest, I'm more concerned with its trajectory than with its current state, but the thing feels like it's been in more or less a holding pattern since the second playtest in terms of what feels like "big direction", so I don't know what to make of its trajectory. In its current state, it's okay; in fact, it's almost agressively okay. It's okay-ness is right up there in your face, B-Minus-ing you into submission. On one hand, I'd probably give an okay-ish edition a try; on the other hand, I want things to be improving from playtest to playtest, not remaining okay-ish.

The happyest and most excited I've ever been with the playtest was with the second one, not because it was the best (the later ones made some adjustments I like too) but because at that point the playtest's trajectory seemed so bright. After the borderline-parody that was the first playtest, a true magnum opus of bungling, the second playtest was exhilirating in its decent-ness. I didn't expect that rate of improvement to continue; if it did, then by the time Next launched it would have to have been a cure for cancer that doubled as an aphrodesiac and repaired the ozone layer. Still, there was part of me that was excited. I'm less excited with time, because the game doesn't really seem to be getting better, though. I was kind of hoping for that.

Jan 30, 2013 -- 12:21AM, OrKKiller wrote:

I'm sorry, there is nothing of 4^th edition in 5^th edition.

Yes there is (the recharge mechanic for one).