While this question, I'm sure, has come up, I'm new to the boards and was wondering the general take....

Does anyone actually think this edition is an improvement, or do the majority of the changes feel more like they were done for the sake of a new edition?

I find very few changes that seem in any way better than the last edition, and in fact genuinely think the majority of them are horrible.

What was the general feling on this when it was still a hot topic (Which I imagine it had to be!)

//What was the general feling on this when it was still a hot topic (Which I imagine it had to be!)//

To get a first-hand impression yourself, you can e. g. browse the backlog of the specific ArM5 list set up by David Chart (http://davidchart.com/mailman/listinfo/arm5_davidchart.com/).
In general it was acknowledged that ArM5 fixed the blatant problems of ArM4 (PeIm, armor in combat system, power level of the Order) and achieved a more consistent and accessible game world than previous ArM versions.
A lot of editing errors were sorted out only after the release: see for some of these now the Errata on the Atlas site (http://www.atlas-games.com/arm5/arm5errata.php).
Omissions in the ArM5 rules that there was strong feeling about were the lack of animal stats (now addressed by a .pdf download: http://www.atlas-games.com/pdf_storage/ArM5Beasts.pdf) and the lack of movement rules in combat.
Another - IMHO very legit - concern is the release schedule of the ArM5 rules: it is hard to migrate a campaign from a setting described by 20+ books to one described by a single volume, it is e. g. a problem to do without adapted rules for Hedge Magicians and Mysteries for the time being.
There was also some whining, of course - but a lot less than I at least had expected at a change of version of a well-established RPG, which modifies the rules basis for many a cherished Character.

Kind regards,

Berengar

I believe that the response of most people was overwhelimingly positive (Of course it's hard to know from mailing lists and buletin boards). Much of the discussion is with percieved flaws because it apparently it takes only a sentance to say "I like the new system of virtues and flaws" and it takes a two week argument to say "I quite dislike the description of the gift even if the examples given and the rules are just fine".

In my opinion:

spending experience points for character generation is now a big pain.

virtues and flaws are better

confidence is finally (after 4 editions) workable

the combat system is greatly improved (but still not fantastic)

the magic rules have been simplified while at the same time they have been made more rich with cerimonial casting and an incredibly cool spell mastery mechanic and many broken things (vis boosting) were fixed.

The laboratory chapter is much improved. the mechanics are more coherent and therefore simpler. Experimentation finally has mechanics that make it an option with both advanteges and drawbacks, talismans and familiars are now worth the effort that it takes to make them.

The long term study mechanics are more consistant and they now interface better with the character generation system.

The aging rules reduce bookkepping and produce results that make sense with the story (even if they don't have as much flavor as those in fourth edition)

The covenant creation rules are the best that we've seen in five editions.

The twilight rules and the new warping rules are (IMHO) an extraordinary improvement over previous editions.

The changes to penetration were 3 editions over-due.

The changes to aura effects make the dominion that exisits in the rules the same as the dominion that exisits in the flavor text.

etc., etc., etc., ...

In fact darn near every single change made was well thought out and an improvement to the game. (The result of David's hard work and significantly more playtesting than we've had for previous editions.)

That's my opinion. Others have views that differ from mine.

Ill agree with Mr. Tyrell on message 5-of-5 on this thread, in that there were a lot of detail changes that were made to 5th ed that I tentatively like. I do disagree with him on several issues... mainly because he hasn't paid me to endorse his viewpoint yet. LOL.

My probable favorite is the Penetration Rules, which now mean that a creature with a Might less than 20 has a place in the game besides as a supply of Vis.

However, my Players and I will have much discussion to decide how to change the pace of Studies... we are not accepting of the lowering of the general power level in 5th ed.

I posted a similar thread to yours, titled "Ye olde time gamers." It's still on here somewhere, and you can read a thread where two schmucks argue pointlessly about a meaningless hobby. We may still be arguing... it's his turn.

In general, I think that 5th ed is an improvement, but there are specifics where I disagree with the Style that the book encourages. I will do what I have done with all three editions of the Rules that I have possessed... cherry-pick the ones I like and either modify or make up the rest.

This means that I may never be able to take my Magus into someone else's campaign... Heaven Forbid... but I think I can deal with that.

Don't write 5th ed off completely, but I understand viewing it with a jaundiced eye.

J.