I was wondering if I should get Road to Legend. I know it is massive and a great experience that makes you feel like you really accomplished something big. But how does it compare to the shorter standard way of playing? Since I don't have RtL I was wondering what you all though were the PROS & CONS of RtL compared to standard Descent?

Thats an interesting question - i don't own RtL and have no leasure and money to get a copy, but I'm curios to see if the current "hype" mainly by new players, who stepped in later, is justified. Is it really this great thing or is the real reason the difficulty to get a one and maybe romanticization of the past or the bad critics of SoB here and there?

Keaggan said:

Pros:
Marries the great tactical game that is vanilla Descent with an excellent strategic game on the mapboard. Although the strategic game is difficult to 'see' easily, which makes many inexperienced groups neglect it to their detriment.
Has a finely tuned balance when played well - both sides can win, but if both play well, winning is not easy - there will be tense and critical moments and the side that best prepares for those moments will mostly likely win them.
Puts some real 'meaning' into the dungeoneering that is the heart of Descent. The goal of each dungeon is no longer just 'kill the big boss' with maybe a thin disguise or twist. Instead the heroes should be looking longer term and acquiring resources for specific upgrading goals.
Puts a lot more into building a hero - heroes start as something a lot weaker than a normal vanilla hero (only one skill) but if they make it through to the final battle will often have more (and better) skills, much better equipment and much much better traits than a normal vanilla hero.
There are some actual real challenges for the heroes - sometimes the monsters will actually be too strong, better for the heroes to flee than fight. That adds another whole level of decision making into the tactical game - its no longer about 'going forward until you win or die' but about balancing the gains and losses involved in going forward or fleeing away.
Needs some planning, research and forethought to be played well. Most groups that complain about the balance didn't bother with this part - they got out what they put in. Note that this is both a pro and a con.

Cons:
Requires a large and long time commitment. This is very difficult to maintain for a group of 5 people, though much easier for 2-3 people.
If not played well, can appear to be badly balanced (actually its very finely balanced if both sides play well).
Needs some planning, research and forethought to be played well. Most groups that complain about the balance didn't bother with this part - they got out what they put in. Note that this is both a pro and a con.
Power trends amplify. If one side gets ahead, it tends to become more powerful, giving it more advantage and more chance of getting yet further ahead. This can spiral out of control, especially for inexperienced or poor players.
When one side is dominating, it can be very boring or frustrating for the other side for many hours at a time until a critical power gain in made that changes the domination.
A few things here and there are either slightly off balance or require a little to much formulaic choice making for a really great game. The heroes must get Wind Pact, the OL really needs to use one event treachery on Crushing Blow, etc etc.
There are still a couple of balance issues. They are not impossible (especially with Feats) but they are very very hard for one side to deal with without anything especially clever or powerful from the other. For me, Slaggorath and Kar-Amag-Atoth are the two outstanding issues, once they get some treachery.
Claims to be for 5 players, but really only two 'players' are involved. There are 4 hero 'players' but really everything can be better decided by one player. And if played by 4, one of those players can destroy the fun for everybody else by not cooperating with the team needs.

Thats probably not everything, but enough for now.