I haven't even seen a copy of D&D5 yet, so have no idea on how much they 'fixed'.

Its partly a mindset of 'one rulebook to rule them all' and not opening their minds that there is another option out there.

There were a few D&D4 fanboys around but anyone with broader gaming experience generally hated it.

I'm in the minority. I have a very broad gaming experience and I like D&D 4e. It certainly had problems (too few skills, level outstripping skill training, and fights at high level taking way too long, etc) but it also played well. At this point, I enjoy 4e more than the "search 37 rulebooks and hyper-optimize your character" "play" of 3.x/Pathfinder.

I will try D&D 5e (Saturday actually) but am not expecting a whole lot. I previously played a very early playtest version at Origins (pretty sure it was the first or second con WotC ever ran it at) and it had major problems but I've heard they fixed some of them (and not others).

The more systems I play, the less I like class-based systems (unless they are very broad like Archetypes in Arcanis)...

Many 'old' systems suffer rulebook bloat due to 'publish or perish' imperitives. For all its foibles, Rolemaster was even worse (although I enjoyed it for other reasons). WH40k is a nightmare these days due to the pricepoint (haven't played in two years due to power-leaps).

A:CSE I feel is the opposite direction and could use 1-2 more produce releases per year (Origins and another around Christmas or January). If I could make the time at home I have the skills to write full products. I can't even make the time to write the adventure I'm working on (outline submitted two years ago).

Back to D&D4, I just had a strange thought. I wonder how it would go as a "class-less" system (no class restrictions on Powers)?

Have you checked out any of the more recent Rolemaster versions? They are much better about balance (and put out a lot fewer products than RM2 did). Personally I prefer RMSS/RMFRP to RM2/RMC but, overall it's pretty evenly split (which is why they are working on RMU as a unified single system).



I agree. Another even worse system is Metal, Magic, and Lore. I really like the system but they are only managing something like 1 release every 2-3 years (and do not have free adventures or back-catalog like Arcanis does).



Interesting thought. I suspect you could come up with some very broken combos but I can't think of any off-hand. Even without mixing powers, you could get some possibly broken powers (I had a Psion that by low paragon was doing something like 1d6+16 damage in a 3x3 square and applying an effect on top of it - the only real balance was that it was not "friendly").

Last night I had a long conversation with the local guy who is in charge of the 5e organized play. He tells me that Hasbro/Wotc is not currently allowing anyone other than Goodman Games to develop any 3rd party product. From what he was able to find out it seems like Hasbro/Wotc is extremely protective of their IP and don't want to let anyone else tap into "their" revenue stream. So it sounds like even if we wanted to use the 5e engine we'd be out of luck, or else Hasbro/Wotc would ask for a prohibitive amount of money for a license. Now Henry may know something we don't and if so that's great. But that "publish or perish" problem seems to be endemic to the industry. I hear Wotc plans to not do that, but only way I see that working is they have to be at only skeleton staffing levels at this point. That and they are putting more efforts behind products other than books (miniatures, boardgames, etc.). I'm a fan of Pathfinder but even I'm getting tired of the bloat, as well as the powergaming min/max cheese monkeys (who really hate you as a GM when you hit them where their min stats hurt ). I got a copy of the 5e players handbook on Saturday and so far I think it would be a better fit than Pathfinder. Still like ARG better though.

Sorry for the rambling, it's late and I'm tired...

Sometimes a system of rules is vital to what kinds of games you want to run.

For example Call of Cthulhu doesn't work in standard D&D of any edition. Or through A:RPG. The point of CoC is to get weaker as you go...and eventually suffer/RP a very colorful demise or retirement. Similarly 7th Seas is about swashbuckler-ing action. Its rules make PCs a lot tougher than mooks and had some of the earliest minion rules. 7th Seas was the first time we laughed as a party as we took on 50 enemy swordsmen ... cause we knew we would win through.

A:RPG has a lot going for it. I love the clock & weapon tricks (a reason to wield a dagger or to hit someone with a shield!). It admittedly also has some wonkiness to its layout and organization (the rules for jumping are under the athletics skill instead of movement. Someone with no ranks in athletics might never find it...The stacking rules seem clunky to me and, IMO, should be simplified). One of the other great things about A:RPG is that it brought magic down from an epic feel to a sword and sorcery feel. The strategic level spells of D&D are gone (teleportation, mass flight, commune) leaving spell casters (like warrior types) operating at a tactical level. I love that! Knock on wood I think we have rough parity between casters and warriors at all levels!

I am all in favor of trying to recruit old hands and new players to widen our base. And I think offering a couple of re-skinned mods in 5E is a smart idea.

But I remain somewhat worried about moving the game to be dual set with 5E rules. I loved 2nd Edition of D&D which I played in college. I like 3.X but as a sometimes module writer doing the stat blocks was like doing taxes. I like 4E. And I've bought and am interested in 5E...if only some decent modules would be written beyond the Encounters program. BUT! By the time D&D PCs reach 5th level they have access to invisibility and flight. By 9th, powerful divintaions, teleportation and raise dead. Everyone has an extensive collection of magic items. I don't see how the spellcasting and magic systems can be easily reconciled. And remain (somewhat) worried that tackling such issues will be a net drain on our limited campaign resources.

From the point of view of introducing new players the DnD/Pathfinder approach has a lot going for it in that at 1st level there aren't that many options so players don't need to learn a huge amount all at once whereas ARPG's multiple routes to an end goal means you need to start planning ahead early. We lost a lot of motivational momentum with the conversion to the new system even though we were interested in trying it and made it through the crusade arc using it. That being said dual releasing modules and books to cover multiple systems seems like it will just slow down releases and remove the focus from the core product as well as introducing brand new cans of worms in conversion processes and compatibility issues.

Well, I also just mentioned this in another thread but I will reiterate here as well. I play 5e once a week now via roll20, and about a month and a half in, I firmly believe 5th edition is the best so far for D&D.
I then started my own Campaign and homebrewed Arcanis races into 5th edition. It actually went well with a few hiccups but it worked. We did two sessions like that before I finally convinced a few of the players to go online and buy A:RPG. Now we have fully switched over to this system. They all loved it. We did lose one of the players due to a lack of interest in learning a new system, but all the others were all about it.

In my opinion, I think this system is still the best around. Of course you have to consider the implications of getting more players, and personally I would continue to play this system over a 5e sourcebook for Arcanis. And there will always be those people out there that prefer classic D&D system, which 5e very much feels like.

The next thing I will mention, is that currently there is a massive lack of settings books for 5th Edition. There is like a 4 page PDF for Eberron, and Forgotten Realms is kind of built into the system books... but otherwise there is a hunger for material with a much larger fanbase due to it being the new D&D system.

Either way, Arcanis is my favorite setting and I will stick it with no matter the system.

If Arcanis ever went dual stated I would actually suggest Savage Worlds. Savage Worlds gets alot of grassroots support and can oft-times rival D&D and Pathfinder for a player base.

On top of that Savage Worlds is popular in the pdf market and is pushed heavily through it so you can avoid production costs at first that way.

The system also allows for a more "Arcanis Theme" feel to it were the crunch of Pathfinder and D&D would just get in the way (and take a redonkulous time to convert to).

I for one (even though I don't run the current engine) wouldn't be in favour of a Pathfinder or 5th Ed version of the game when the target audience of Arcanis "I feel" more often than not players games like Savage Worlds (and Fate, etc). Atleast locally from what I've gathered from BC.

And just thinking on it, a great alternative to a system other than Pathfinder or D&D would be the AGE system by Green Ronin (which was used for Dragon Age) and will be featured prominently on Wil Wheaton's Tabletop RPG thingy.............. plus Green Ronin and PCI have worked together before so who know's maybe they'd be happy to oblige.........

Just a system that is easy enough to work with to quickly fit in with the Arcanis setting with little leg work from the conversion standpoint.

It's what I use for my home campaign, and since I focus on story and action instead of heavy rules and crunch it works very very well.