Quote from: Kiero;571916How cute.

Just call it as I see it. Shocking that I am not banned there like others . But I do lurk between posts. It's all good, there's nothing wrong with preferring newer versions of Dnd despite what others say. That's why 1989's and your attitude stinks. Who cares about 1989? You? Maybe.

Quote from: Kiero;571912As a general rule, people who like 3e don't like 4e. People who like 4e don't like 3e. So why the fuck would you draw on two virtually incompatible editions for a game that's supposedly for everyone?

Outside of Internet Forum Land I am not actually convinced this holds true.

In my experience there is a huge overlap that is happy to play either.

Quote from: jadrax;571939Outside of Internet Forum Land I am not actually convinced this holds true.

In my experience there is a huge overlap that is happy to play either.

Indeed. I will play either one but hell if I will run either of them.

Quote from: jadrax;571939Outside of Internet Forum Land I am not actually convinced this holds true.

In my experience there is a huge overlap that is happy to play either.

If I've got a good group, I'll play anything.  Hell, this Saturday we're continuing our 3.5 campaign, and that has to be one of my least favorite editions.  But no one in my group is a munchkin, so 90% of the problems with 3e really haven't come up.  That, and we play without grids so we also end up ignoring a lot of the combat rules (like AoOs

Quote from: Sacrosanct;571968If I've got a good group, I'll play anything.  Hell, this Saturday we're continuing our 3.5 campaign, and that has to be one of my least favorite editions.  But no one in my group is a munchkin, so 90% of the problems with 3e really haven't come up.  That, and we play without grids so we also end up ignoring a lot of the combat rules (like AoOs

Yeah...I'll especially TRY pretty much anything at least once.

Quote from: Kiero;571916How cute.

Welcome to the adult swim. None of that "safe space" bullshit here.

Quote from: Marleycat;571917Just call it as I see it. Shocking that I am not banned there like others . But I do lurk between posts. It's all good, there's nothing wrong with preferring newer versions of Dnd despite what others say. That's why 1989's and your attitude stinks. Who cares about 1989? You? Maybe.

Eh, come on, I didn't do anything bad.

I called it as I saw it.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;572205Welcome to the adult swim. None of that "safe space" bullshit here.

I was merely expressing my amusement. Mostly at the way none of my actual arguments were engaged, merely a lame attempt at an ad hominem attack in lieu of anything like...well anything. It was pretty content-free.

Quote from: Kiero;572322I was merely expressing my amusement. Mostly at the way none of my actual arguments were engaged, merely a lame attempt at an ad hominem attack in lieu of anything like...well anything. It was pretty content-free.

We tend to respond in kind around here.

Quote from: StormBringer;572331We tend to respond in kind around here.

Man, everyone's a comedian.

Re: Two-weapon fighting.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;571198From what I have heard, its designed to be useful against multiple piddly opponents that don't require much damage to kill without being too good against a single target.

In other words, it stinks of overengineered gamist crap.

I haven't actually gotten the materials yet so I'm reserving comment on the packet as a whole until then.

Also, looking into the 3etard/4venger mindset I [strike]recoil in abject horror[/strike] guess that inevitably it will be used to wield two magic weapons with different enchantments, so you can, say, both poison and paralyse your enemy. Or apply both fire and electricity damage to get through resistances.

Search your feelings, it's what will inevitably happen.

Hmm... each release from WotC seems to strengthen my opinion that they have absolutely no plan and no clue how to do what they want to do.

I'm still not really seeing a "slimmed down core with optional add-ons" approach so much as a hobo stew of mechanics where they try to combine different rules from different editions together along with funky new mechanics.

Everyone has a favorite edition and is critical of other editions to varying degrees, but at least all those different edition knew what they were trying to do - the rules were built for a specific purpose (whether that purpose was trying to be "realistic", offer flavorful options, offer mechanical options, or maintain "balance").

The guiding principal of D&D Next's rules appears to be "try not to piss anyone off too badly by smashing everything together". That's just not a good strategy.

You know what - seriously - I'll take a narrative-focused Jenga tower based rules set over this. At least it knows what it wants to do.

Quote from: jgants;572664I'm still not really seeing a "slimmed down core with optional add-ons" approach so much as a hobo stew of mechanics where they try to combine different rules from different editions together along with funky new mechanics.

I think you nailed it, here.

Quote from: 1989;572258Eh, come on, I didn't do anything bad.

I called it as I saw it.

It was a bit over the top wasn't it? Sorry but I was in a "mood" and had to go with my roll.

Quote from: jgants;572664I'm still not really seeing a "slimmed down core with optional add-ons" approach so much as a hobo stew of mechanics where they try to combine different rules from different editions together along with funky new mechanics.

It does seem like a collection of the worst stereotypes from each edition.