Peter BOSCO'S
Adventurer
Well, it would cost us many thousands of dollars at the store, since people would stop buying 5e. It would also destroy the last vestiges of my hope of WOTC ever doing something sensible.
Some people already stopped buying. Some people would (and have) doubled down on buying the last of the edition.Well, it would cost us many thousands of dollars at the store, since people would stop buying 5e.
What stops them from correcting CR for onednd?in another thread @Maxperson pointed out what a failure the CR system is. IF they where calling it 6e they could redraw systems from the ground up to fix issues like that.
Tradition at this point.What stops them from correcting CR for onednd?
I'm guessing making any meaningful change to CR would be hard to pull off while maintaining full backwards compatibility.What stops them from correcting CR for onednd?
Game Inertia. A rule in motion tends to stay in motion while a rule at rest stays as rest.What stops them from correcting CR for onednd?
CR is pretty much like alignment; it's a legacy mechanic with a small amount of descriptive utility but virtually no mechanical use.I'm guessing making any meaningful change to CR would be hard to pull off while maintaining full backwards compatibility.
the thing is it doesn't need to be 'corrected' as much as a ground floor redo. Something that is well outside the scope paying lip service to back compatibility.What stops them from correcting CR for onednd?
Ah, if you dont like the system itself then its a long wait for a train that dont come.the thing is it doesn't need to be 'corrected' as much as a ground floor redo. Something that is well outside the scope paying lip service to back compatibility.