Search results

Thanks for the clarification. I do find it more than a little disturbing that anyone would insinuate any forum member, let alone an active member, is a bigot.

If that is your take away cool, it is also a buyer beware for those looking to spend money there that it's not all peaches and cream.

Misplaced or not, clarity on just who is being labeled is key.

If you're throwing the term bigot around I'd like it to be very clear if you're including me in the group you paint with that large brush.

You quoted my post that was simply a link to answer another user asked. I am simply the messenger, I am not siding with anyone in in this particular debate. If you weren't throwing me in with a group it wasn't very clear.

Yes, but those fractions were very significant.

I was just providing facts to another user, no need to shoot the messenger.

They were stripped of lore, combined into Monsters of the Multiverse, then removed from the market.

I agree, but this is not the case on DDB, they have removed and changed things since to the point that I have stopped buying, paying and using the site. They have crawfished on printed advertisements, and flat out lied more than once. When taken to task on these things they resort to censorship...

The more they add to DDB the less convenient and harder to use the site becomes. I don't think a single project on that site has been finished the encounter builder has been in beta for something like 6 years, and there are things from the 14 PHB that still don't work. If you don't like how DDB...

See post 825

My take very oversimplified take on it is at inception it was a way for Wizards to ensure there was enough content for the game in the early days to build the brand so to speak, and the scandal was about taking it away as they wanted as much revenue as possible now that they didn't feel the need...

The question I have is do they count the digital sales of the older books when making the comparison between the old and new?

Compared to the 4 previous 5e monster books it is pretty haphazard, some monsters are place alphabetical, otheres grouped by type so.e a little of both. Which in my opinion ruins it for actually using the book to play the game. All 3 of the new core books suffer from changing things, but not...

I think most of the complaints are do to the lack of consistency in how they sorteded the monsters. Which is valid, as the haphazard smorgasbord of methodology used to group and place them detracts from the books usefulness for both game prep and play. It affects using both the physical and...

Interesting information, I hope the books get better soon.

The 24 rules were marketed very differently than any of the previous 5e books, they heavily pushed pre-orders and added perks and digital minis for Sigil (which was also heavily marketed at the time). Whether they wanted or needed it to be the biggest/fastest et al seller, they haven't been...

Using what metrics? There is a lot of wiggle room in that statement.

I hadn't thought about it much, but this timeline coincides precisely with my loss of interest in buying new D&D books. I own several of them, and even use stuff from some of them. The Winninger books at best just underwhelm me, and at worst I find barely usable. I don't know how much of this is...

Have you considered that is how they want to play their characters, not every one wants to play the classes and subclasses in the conventional way. Maybe you are inadvertently attempting to force them to play their characters how you want them played and not letting them play them how they want...