Oh, please.Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas.
Edit: I retract the comment. Not a rewarding topic of conversation.
Last edited:
Oh, please.Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas.
look I liked that one weird playtest sorcerer, it was good.
The playtest sorcerer was excellent, and when the designers got scared off by initial feedback...yeah that pretty much told me all I needed to know about what 5e was going to become.The weird playtest sorcerer displayed the difference between the clsses better.
Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas
It's true.Oh, please.
If you have a better explanation for why the two most-flavorful and honestly best-constructed playtest classes apparently got such negative feedback that the designers felt they had to completely abandon them and start over, never to be seen again until official release, I'm listening.Oh, please.
That's more or less what 4e did.Judging by premodern military history, four classes:
• Knight (heavy infantry)
• Skirmisher (light infantry)
• Rogue (covert)
• Archer (artillery)
There is also a fifth category, cavalry, but it is odd.
Okay, you’re right.If you have a better explanation for why the two most-flavorful and honestly best-constructed playtest classes apparently got such negative feedback that the designers felt they had to completely abandon them and start over, never to be seen again until official release, I'm listening.
Your sarcasm is not productive. I was genuinely hoping you had an answer besides "you're dumb for thinking that people voted against something because it was new." Because yeah, that sort of thing happened a lot during the playtest. It wasn't just confined to things I liked, e.g. Mearls tried very hard to get the community to go for proficiency dice instead of proficiency bonus but eventually relented. (AIUI, he loves rolling fistfuls of dice, so he overruled the normal response to anything that wasn't polling supermajority positive, but it stayed unpopular over time.) Nor to things I had any real feelings about at all, as that's what killed Specialties (and thus the Warlord-style Fighter, which had originally had explicit support...but then was turned into a Specialty, and when Specialties got dropped it had nowhere else to manifest so they quietly stopped talking about it.)Okay, you’re right. The community hated new ideas. Otherwise, everyone would have shared your opinions.
1 to 5 are great.That's more or less what 4e did.
- Fighter (heavy infantry)
- Ranger (light infantry)
- Rogue (covert and irregulars)
- Hunter (missile)
- Warlord (command)
- Skald (flagbearer and horns)
- Berserker (shock infantry)
I retracted my statement.Your sarcasm is not productive. I was genuinely hoping you had an answer besides "you're dumb for thinking that people voted against something because it was new." Because yeah, that sort of thing happened a lot during the playtest. It wasn't just confined to things I liked, e.g. Mearls tried very hard to get the community to go for proficiency dice instead of proficiency bonus but eventually relented. (AIUI, he loves rolling fistfuls of dice, so he overruled the normal response to anything that wasn't polling supermajority positive, but it stayed unpopular over time.) Nor to things I had any real feelings about at all, as that's what killed Specialties (and thus the Warlord-style Fighter, which had originally had explicit support...but then was turned into a Specialty, and when Specialties got dropped it had nowhere else to manifest so they quietly stopped talking about it.)