| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing a Barbarian, which I get that it's supposed to be one of the simpler classes available, but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it. I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO. The differences will largely be superficial and purely in how I present myself to the group.You get to choose how to spend you attributes at 4th level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level.
If your using backgrounds and inspiration; how you play your character is a mechanically significant feature.
If your using feats, those attribute increase slots suddenly individualise your character even more.
You can disagree with me if you want. You're welcome to your opinion.
My opinion, is that I do not find the limited choices available to be satisfying. You can tell me why YOU don't find that to be true, but I have read the game and am playing it currently. My opinion on the game is also valid and is true to my own experience with it.
I like character creation. I like how the rules create interactions between the players and the game world. My one complaint is that character development is lacking. I'm fully aware of what you've outlined and I still feel this way.
I wasn't commenting on your opinion that there isn't enough mechanical choice in the barbarian. I was pointing out that their was a little more choice than you had stated you believed there was, that is all.
For me, honestly, the absence of the plethora of choice doesn't really matter that much, because A, the system is structured in a very permissive manner, more like an Indie RPG than 3.5, so I feel more comfortable going to the DM and saying, "dude, can I make a attribute test to achieve this thing I want to do?" or some such, and B, all of the mechanical choice available are interesting and roughly within the same ball park.
Every time I read a class in detail, I come out of it with a character concept I want to play RTFN for at least each of the paths. In some cases, more because of a feat or background combination with the class.
I cannot say the same for pathfinder, either because complexity puts me off, or because an archetype just doesn't really do what it is meant to do, or because I just am not keen on the implementation, or because to do what I want to do with a character I have to give up something I consider core to the class I want to play.
I am not an optimizer, I actually pretty much loath the process of making a character for pathfinder or 3.5, because the people I play with are optimizers, and the only way to remain even remotely reliant to the game is to play the same way, even though every time I cut out some cool aspect of the character to achieve relevance it makes me hate the game a little more.
The lower level of choice, and bound bonuses mean that those guys will be able to munchin it up to their hearts contents, and I won't have to, and the differences between our characters will not be insummountable
Okay, here's a point by point rebuttal.
1) Attribute bumps
The character doesn't really change. My strength is now 18 instead of 16. If I'm the "muscle" of the group, it's not like the roleplaying options are changing or people are all of a sudden going to perceive me differently. I'm still going to be essentially the exact same character, just attack/damage improve a little.
Unless you roll amazingly well, the majority of stat bumps are going to your classes primary stats. A wizard is going to increase their intelligence most of the time until they hit 20. They might bump Con or Dex if they feel they really need a boost to survival, but again, there's not an amazing depth of choice that really molds a character or represents how they change over time.
2) Backgrounds
As far as I'm aware, this has nothing to do with advancement. The choice is made at creation and is set in stone at that point. There are no choices of advancement or character development.
I actually think this is a missed opportunity. I like inspiration and tying it into options from the background, but pushing it further and continue to influence future choices would have been cool. Not just "what happened in the past influences the future" but actual new choices involving the background. Like if I choose criminal, maybe later one I could choose "reformed" or "crime lord". Knowing that I have this choice coming up at a future date would force choices in the roleplaying that feed back into making this choice later on.
3) Feats
First off, you have to give up your ability score advancement. You can still get a 1 point boost in some cases, but this is a lot to give up. Usually the feats broaden options, but are relatively low in actual power, they're closer to a very mild form of multi-classing really. I looked them over and none of them really seemed that interesting. The ones that at first blush seemed like they might often gave me several things I already had access to. If I'm a warrior type, the warrior related feats don't add much. Proficiency in things I'm already proficient in for example.
They're of limited value and felt more like edge cases. And they're only a few available during an entire 20-level career.
I like the combat rules.
I like the character creation rules.
The skills seem okay.
I'm not impressed with character advancement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion, is that I do not find the limited choices available to be satisfying. You can tell me why YOU don't find that to be true, but I have read the game and am playing it currently. My opinion on the game is also valid and is true to my own experience with it.I like character creation. I like how the rules create interactions between the players and the game world. My one complaint is that character development is lacking. I'm fully aware of what you've outlined and I still feel this way.
I understand what you are saying, but disagree. You want the rules to create interactions through mechanics (?yes / no?) The important interactions are, imo, not mechanical. It's about the RP. When I started playing there were few, if any, significant differences between starting low level characters and not that many rules based interactions beyond combat / spells. They became unique as they progressed to the extent they ever did and still managed to interact with the world without everything being "by the rules". The best parts of the game were outside the mechanics as players explored and encountered NPCs and so on. That's why I don't feel the need for every PC to be mechanically distinct. YMMV. Having said that, I can understand the draw of wanting characters to be unique and wanting their connections with the game world laid out... but I just don't need it.
In the end, it's all a matter of degree and individual preference of course.
Okay, here's a point by point rebuttal.
1) Attribute bumps
The character doesn't really change. My strength is now 18 instead of 16. If I'm the "muscle" of the group, it's not like the roleplaying options are changing or people are all of a sudden going to perceive me differently. I'm still going to be essentially the exact same character, just attack/damage improve a little.
Unless you roll amazingly well, the majority of stat bumps are going to your classes primary stats. A wizard is going to increase their intelligence most of the time until they hit 20. They might bump Con or Dex if they feel they really need a boost to survival, but again, there's not an amazing depth of choice that really molds a character or represents how they change over time.
In the post I was initially responding to, you said
but I get to make a choice at 3rd level. That's pretty much it.
Attributes are a choice you get to make after that point. Now you might not see it as a real choice. You might see raising your primary stats as being so important you can't not do it, but I don't know if the game supports that idea.
The combination of combat/exploration/social model of 5th and bound bonuses, means that hyper specialization less desirable than say in 3.5.
If you hyper specialize as a fighter to be good in combat, you may well leave yourself unable to contribute meaningfully to the other two thirds of the game. Not to mention leaving yourself vulnerable t attacks against your attribute saving throws.
Now take into account the fact that a 12 basic orcs are still conceivably a threat to a 4 person 10th level party, and an a 1st fighter 13s in his primary and using a weapon he is proficient with, hits a CR 17 adult red dragon 25% of the time. In short, you don't need to hyper specialize to be good in 5th, you have a lot of wriggle room in 5th editions to improve other aspects of your character, and good reasons to not hyper-specialize, because you know, not failing cha, int, and wis saves as regularly may be more important for your character than making your str, dex and con saves a little more often.
So while it might not be a choice YOU would make, it is still a choice. It could be driven by the greater inherent viability of generalism is 5th, or by a desire to place an aspect of character concept over mechanical optimisation, but it is a choice.
Also a character learning more about the world, or becoming more perceptive are changes to the character.
2) BackgroundsAs far as I'm aware, this has nothing to do with advancement. The choice is made at creation and is set in stone at that point. There are no choices of advancement or character development.
I actually think this is a missed opportunity. I like inspiration and tying it into options from the background, but pushing it further and continue to influence future choices would have been cool. Not just "what happened in the past influences the future" but actual new choices involving the background. Like if I choose criminal, maybe later one I could choose "reformed" or "crime lord". Knowing that I have this choice coming up at a future date would force choices in the roleplaying that feed back into making this choice later on.
While the thrust of your comments had clearly been that there were not many choices after character creation, you also voiced a concern that all barbarians would look the same mechanically.
I get to play the character how I want, but mechanically, if I made 3 barbarians, they're all going to be very similar to each other IMO.
Well, while there is some truth to that, your choice in backgrounds go a fairly long way to making characters different an unique, in a manner that interacts mechanics.
Now it is true that by default there is no way in which elements of background change(that i am aware off), it is a pretty reasonable application of common sense and rule zero that elements of a characters background such as ideals, flaws and bonds change over the course of a campaign. Not all character development is numbers getting bigger after all.
3) FeatsFirst off, you have to give up your ability score advancement. You can still get a 1 point boost in some cases, but this is a lot to give up. Usually the feats broaden options, but are relatively low in actual power, they're closer to a very mild form of multi-classing really. I looked them over and none of them really seemed that interesting. The ones that at first blush seemed like they might often gave me several things I already had access to. If I'm a warrior type, the warrior...
your entitled to you opinion on this but there are a lot of feats I would happily take rather than a +2 an attribute score.
Alert for instance, +5 initiative, never be surprised while conscious, denying ambushers advantage against you.
Or Inspiring Leader, with its awesome temp hit point buff.
Sentinel with its movement shut down and retributive attacks
Shield Master is basically a version of evasion, with added bonus to dex saves and a bit of battlefield control.
Great Weapon master Power attack AND regular bonus attack generation.
And that is before going into the really interesting feats like Observant that makes you a powerhouse in the social or exploration parts of the game. Seriously, in an investigative social section lip reading, attribute boost AND +5 to passive perception and investigation, that is absolutely amazing.
I am pretty happy to say that, as I play humans as a rule, most character I play will have two feats.
As usual Joe, haters will hate. We are examples of people who see the positives or at least see the most of 5e changes as good things. If I was still a rabid power gamer/ min maxer/ munchkin ,I'd scoff at much of how 5e is designed. Happens though it came along at a time in my life when the 30+ ability scores have lost their sparkle and the rule bending to destroy cr30 monsters in a single round has lost its luster. Unlimited power in the game has become a prison. 5e is the key to escaping the excess of the last 15 years or so.
Honestly, I see this kind of conversation happening a lot, and not just with PF, and both sides will have valid reasons to support their views. In the end, while the changes are not bad, they will impact WotC's ability to successfully reunite the fan base. For all that there is a lot to potentially like, there isn't much of anything there for 3rd edition and PF players to really grab onto in terms of competing with a system that many still like. WotC very clearly went very conservative and went back to the brand's very DM heavy roots; the cost is they took out almost all of the player driven options beyond the class itself (even skills aren't really player driven anymore when DMs ultimately control when and how they can be used). To me, they did a really good job of making a modern version of the original game, and that's great for those that liked that original version. There's a lot of people who didn't like that version, though, and many more that don't have the ability/time to find the type of group that the rules assume the game will be played in, and for those people, 5E is often going to be a major step backwards. For many others, it won't get any reaction at all besides "why do I need yet another edition of a game based on the same basic logic I can already find in at least 4 others?"
I can see a lot of folks playing both for different reasons, but I don't see a lot of people suddenly completely dropping PF for 5E at this point. Most of the people in that camp have already moved on from PF, or were already looking for a reason to move on. Either way, the long term impact on both PF and 5E is going to be minimal; PF will continue to get new blood that enjoys what PF offers and 5E will continue to look elsewhere primarily for support, just like they are now.
5E is not a bad system, but it will never directly compete with PF; it's main competition is going to be other rules light systems, which can offer the same DM flexibility 5E has while also offering something to the to players at the same time, 5E's biggest weakness. When players almost never engage with the system directly, keeping those players interested in the face of competition is going to be tough, and 5E will have plenty of competition, unlike its pre 3rd edition predecessors that had very little.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a small complaint about it. I don't think it's perfect, but...
I just wanted to make this really clear, because this seems to not be sinking in.
I never claimed otherwise. You mentioned that you wanted more choices in creating your barbarian character, and I'm curious about how you meant that. Are there some specific choices you'd like to have available, or do you mean that you enjoy the process itself of strategizing and picking out elements to create your character? If the latter, then I have to agree that 5e is not the best at that aspect of gaming.
Gonna keep this simple, since there seems to be confusion.
I have zero issue with character creation.
The choices available during advancement.
1. They can be rare
2. Options are very limited
3. The impact of some opportunities for choices is minimal
Essentially, it feels like all the options for a character are made at level 1 (or creation). Once you make those decisions, things change, but you don't get to decide how or what changes. The few opportunities do not seem satisfying IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The choices available during advancement.
1. They can be rare
2. Options are very limited
3. The impact of some opportunities for choices is minimalEssentially, it feels like all the options for a character are made at level 1 (or creation). Once you make those decisions, things change, but you don't get to decide how or what changes. The few opportunities do not seem satisfying IMO.
While that is an oversimplification, compared to Pathfinder you are quite right. I have said it before, 5e is a game that plays almost completely "at the table". The "away from table game" is very light on and frankly, I love that. YMMV.
While that is an oversimplification, compared to Pathfinder you are quite right. I have said it before, 5e is a game that plays almost completely "at the table". The "away from table game" is very light on and frankly, I love that. YMMV.The choices available during advancement.
1. They can be rare
2. Options are very limited
3. The impact of some opportunities for choices is minimalEssentially, it feels like all the options for a character are made at level 1 (or creation). Once you make those decisions, things change, but you don't get to decide how or what changes. The few opportunities do not seem satisfying IMO.
I'm not comparing the game to Pathfinder at all. You are making the assumption that I am, which is incorrect and leading you to faulty conclusions.
I greatly prefer "at the table" as well. I love games where characters change mechanically based on what happens at the table.
For example, I love some things about Burning Wheel. One of the things is you can have a Trait, which serves a purely descriptive purpose. You can play to accentuate the trait, or to hide it. At the end of the session you can ask the group to vote on one of two things:
1) You played the trait up enough to turn it into a mechanical thing
2) You downplayed the trait enough to remove it
So, if you want a mechanical bonus, you have to play it out and convince your fellow players that you have done so.
I love stuff like that.
I know it's a Paizo board, but don't necessarily assume everyone wants everything to be like Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I am going to jump to another conclusion and assume you just want to keep pressing your point rather than engaging in a conversation. Enjoy.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am fine with less choices, because most of the choices you're given in Pathfinder are pretty much just trap options anyway. Then there's all the "must have" feats. If you're building a character that wields a 2-handed weapon, you're going to take Power Attack and Furious Focus. Every single time. If you're building an archer, there goes most of your feats. These feats aren't really options; they're not diversifying your character; they're mandatory for your build to work. I mean, you could take Alertness or such with your archer, but you're going to want to wait 'till you've gotten all the essential feats. Point-blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Many Shot, etc. When you look at the shear number of choices, and realize you're only ever going to be availing yourself of 10% of them, the illusion evaporates. I'd rather have less, but more meaningful, options. I'm not saying 5th presents a perfect solution, but I appreciate the attempt at simplifying the game. I'm not really a fan of an ever-growing mass of rules text, in the form of feats; they really slow down gameplay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am fine with less choices, because most of the choices you're given in Pathfinder are pretty much just trap options anyway. Then there's all the "must have" feats. If you're building a character that wields a 2-handed weapon, you're going to take Power Attack and Furious Focus. Every single time. If you're building an archer, there goes most of your feats. These feats aren't really options; they're not diversifying your character; they're mandatory for your build to work. I mean, you could take Alertness or such with your archer, but you're going to want to wait 'till you've gotten all the essential feats. Point-blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Many Shot, etc. When you look at the shear number of choices, and realize you're only ever going to be availing yourself of 10% of them, the illusion evaporates. I'd rather have less, but more meaningful, options. I'm not saying 5th presents a perfect solution, but I appreciate the attempt at simplifying the game. I'm not really a fan of an ever-growing mass of rules text, in the form of feats; they really slow down gameplay.
Extremely well explained. The interesting thing that I found was that my players were amazed that they could just do what they wanted without permission from the rules (feats).
You forgot Clustered Shot!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I am going to jump to another conclusion and assume you just want to keep pressing your point rather than engaging in a conversation. Enjoy.
So, now I'm a bad person because people asked me to clarify point and I did?
This thread is full of opinions... and their corollaries.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a lot of people suddenly completely dropping PF for 5E at this point. Most of the people in that camp have already moved on from PF, or were already looking for a reason to move on.
Yeah, I completely dropped PF and moved on before the DDN playtest started and made the switch to 2nd edition AD&D.
So 5th edition really doesn't offer me anything that I want or don't already have...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the question, yes will be switching soon. Already discussed with the group and we'll be giving it a go. I'm fairly confident that once we've created characters and had a little play time we'll not look back.
|
|
Are you playing any specific world or set of modules or just 2Ed homebrew? I played a little 2Ed a few years back, the DM spliced in a feat from 3.5 though we did not play enough to see how the "experiment" would work.
I played 2nd edition from the time it came out in 1989, to 2000 when 3.0 was released (at which point I switched).
Having played the rules-intensive variations of d20 (from 3rd edition D&D to Pathfinder) for 12 years, I wanted a return to a simpler rule-set...
To answer your question however, I make use of most of the TSR published settings. Currently I am running a solo campaign for my wife set in the "From the Ashes" era of World of Greyhawk, and I am also running a separate "one-shot" game for a separate group using the original "Ravenloft" module combined with "Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill".
Well I am going to jump to another conclusion and assume you just want to keep pressing your point rather than engaging in a conversation. Enjoy.Looked like he clarified an assumption you had made. Not sure what exactly is to be made of your response.
He assumed that I assumed he played Pathfinder. I didn't. I compared 5e complexity of advancement to Pathfinder as a lead in to my point that 5e has far lesser off table play compared to PF. You could make that of my response I guess?
I'm already Switched. I'm very happy in general with the new rules and welcomed the simplicity of it all.
I will still use Pathfinder for playing the Adventure Paths and the Society Scenarios.
Nice. I am running Rise of the Runelords and performing on the fly conversions for monsters and dungeons. So far it is working well. It may get tougher with "class advanced monsters" or creatures that have nothing close for a reskinning.
|
He assumed that I assumed he played Pathfinder. I didn't. I compared 5e complexity of advancement to Pathfinder as a lead in to my point that 5e has far lesser off table play compared to PF. You could make that of my response I guess?
You mentioned Pathfinder directly in your response to him. It just seems like you are working at taking offense here, which smacks of edition warring to me. That's all from me on this.
Maybe this thread should be retitled "Yeah I was slumming it with Pathfinder but now that ACTUAL D&D is back I'm better now..."
I love how it seems like Deja vu from around 2007 or so when everyone was basically bashing and saying the same thing about 3.5 in preparation for 4E.
The more things change the more they say the same I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nice. I am running Rise of the Runelords and performing on the fly conversions for monsters and dungeons. So far it is working well. It may get tougher with "class advanced monsters" or creatures that have nothing close for a reskinning.I'm already Switched. I'm very happy in general with the new rules and welcomed the simplicity of it all.
I will still use Pathfinder for playing the Adventure Paths and the Society Scenarios.
I haven't GMed 5th edition yet, so I could be totally off-base...
It feels like the generally lower power curve will make creating monsters easier. Since the number ranges will stay a little closer together you can spend more time thinking about the special abilities monsters might have (or translating key abilities from other editions) than fiddling with the numbers of AC, Attack, Damage, HP, etc.
3.0 had the concept of building monsters essentially as if they were characters. While this led to a system of creating monsters, that had consequences. It took time to build and create things from scratch for the GM. Not following that system could leave gaps in the monster stats causing delays during play if they came up. It also created a certain rigidity.
Building good monsters really just requires experience and feel from the GM, unfortunately, even with a system in place. The simpler system of 5E will be easier and quicker to manipulate for a GM IMO. You spend a little bit of time on the basic stats, then you go to the creative bit of special abilities.
So, I think if you're getting a good feel for how to build monsters early, that is going to pay off well when you're doing the stranger monsters later on in the adventure path.
I might take a look at it and consider it if Paizo try to make a new version of Pathfinder. For right now though Pathfinder is near as makes no difference to the perfect rpg, so I don't see the point yet.
I might take a look at it and consider it if Paizo try to make a new version of Pathfinder. For right now though Pathfinder is near as makes no difference to the perfect rpg, so I don't see the point yet.
For you..
I mean, it isn't call of cthulhu, or fate, so it isn't near to the perfect RPG for me, and it isn't 5th so it isn't as close as anyone had gotten to the perfect fantasy rpg for me either ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[bro]Derek is on board, yeh, lets do this!!![/bro]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I might take a look at it and consider it if Paizo try to make a new version of Pathfinder. For right now though Pathfinder is near as makes no difference to the perfect rpg, so I don't see the point yet.For you..
I mean, it isn't call of cthulhu, or fate, so it isn't near to the perfect RPG for me, and it isn't 5th so it isn't as close as anyone had gotten to the perfect fantasy rpg for me either ;)
Or Dark, the perfect stealth rpg.
Seriously, until you play that game, you have no idea how well stealth can be done in an RPG.
|
Maybe this thread should be retitled "Yeah I was slumming it with Pathfinder but now that ACTUAL D&D is back I'm better now..."
I love how it seems like Deja vu from around 2007 or so when everyone was basically bashing and saying the same thing about 3.5 in preparation for 4E.
The more things change the more they say the same I guess.
Well I love Pathfinder. I plan on still being a customer and playing in games and I still run a game. I just will also play in 5E and run 5E games. It isn't a religion - you can pick more than one.
I completely disagree about 2007 Deja vu. It is so different this time around. No irritating build up, no secrecy as far as the design direction and no shock. When 4E came out there was an instant backlash. I remember watching the reviews pop up on Amazon - one bad review after another. That week the youtube reviews starting coming out and they were just hostile. The community instantly reacted poorly. I recall this because I was super worried about the fact that I had just dropped all of that cash on new books. I stuck it out for just under a year and abandoned it - but I knew it wasn't a good fit for me on the first game. This time around the reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Additionally, people have been testing it for over a year. This time around seems totally different.
Of course people have the same complaints about 3.5E that they did when waiting for 4E. They are REAL problems. They didn't go away. They just weren't as bad for some people as 4E was. I have heard those same issues about 3.5E discussed for the last 10 years or so. People wanted a new edition. A great many just didn't want 4E.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't understand some of the overstated complaining on either side here. 5e seems to be going a LOT smoother than 1e=>2e, 2e=>3e, and 3e=>4e. I like 5e, but don't love it (i.e. I'll always find something to complain about in any system). But I'll still be playing it in one campaign while DM'ing PF in another.
I might take a look at it and consider it if Paizo try to make a new version of Pathfinder. For right now though Pathfinder is near as makes no difference to the perfect rpg, so I don't see the point yet.For you..
I mean, it isn't call of cthulhu, or fate, so it isn't near to the perfect RPG for me, and it isn't 5th so it isn't as close as anyone had gotten to the perfect fantasy rpg for me either ;)
Or Dark, the perfect stealth rpg.
Seriously, until you play that game, you have no idea how well stealth can be done in an RPG.
I'll have to check that out :D
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe this thread should be retitled "Yeah I was slumming it with Pathfinder but now that ACTUAL D&D is back I'm better now..."
I love how it seems like Deja vu from around 2007 or so when everyone was basically bashing and saying the same thing about 3.5 in preparation for 4E.
The more things change the more they say the same I guess.
Well I love Pathfinder. I plan on still being a customer and playing in games and I still run a game. I just will also play in 5E and run 5E games. It isn't a religion - you can pick more than one.
I completely disagree about 2007 Deja vu. It is so different this time around. No irritating build up, no secrecy as far as the design direction and no shock. When 4E came out there was an instant backlash. I remember watching the reviews pop up on Amazon - one bad review after another. That week the youtube reviews starting coming out and they were just hostile. The community instantly reacted poorly. I recall this because I was super worried about the fact that I had just dropped all of that cash on new books. I stuck it out for just under a year and abandoned it - but I knew it wasn't a good fit for me on the first game. This time around the reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Additionally, people have been testing it for over a year. This time around seems totally different.
Of course people have the same complaints about 3.5E that they did when waiting for 4E. They are REAL problems. They didn't go away. They just weren't as bad for some people as 4E was. I have heard those same issues about 3.5E discussed for the last 10 years or so. People wanted a new edition. A great many just didn't want 4E.
I think a lot of us are quietly hoping that Pathfinder Unchained IS a test balloon for Pathfinder 2nd Edition, because there IS still a lot broken with the 3.x OGL system and there are opportunities to fix it without casting as much aside as 4th or 5th.
|
I might take a look at it and consider it if Paizo try to make a new version of Pathfinder. For right now though Pathfinder is near as makes no difference to the perfect rpg, so I don't see the point yet.For you..
I mean, it isn't call of cthulhu, or fate, so it isn't near to the perfect RPG for me, and it isn't 5th so it isn't as close as anyone had gotten to the perfect fantasy rpg for me either ;)
Or Dark, the perfect stealth rpg.
Seriously, until you play that game, you have no idea how well stealth can be done in an RPG.
IT, has Dark been released yet its been awhile since I looked. /threadjack
So several weeks on my knickers are still in a twist over PDFs, but otherwise I have no complaints.
Wait...that's not true. I tried Adventurer's League in L.A. last weekend, and it wasn't a great experience. They have a way to go there.
But as far as the rules themselves, they're solid.