Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Apok" data-source="post: 920076" data-attributes="member: 1969">Y'know, I've gotta laugh.&nbsp; I just got finished writing a post defending WotC's position and I just realized that they are contradicting their own revision policy.You see, I was thinking that the designers were taking a &quot;If it ain't broke, don't fix it&quot; approach to revisions, which would explain why they didn't drop the multiclass restrictions on the monk or paladin and why they didn't change the half-elf.&nbsp; However, they still thought to improve upon their original design by changing the facing rules!&nbsp; Those rules weren't broken, but they fixed them anyway just because they could!&nbsp; Every other change was made for some valid reason, except this one!*rams head into brick wall*The only possible excuse they have is that changing the facing rules wouldn't perpetuate a major mechanics balance issue, while dropping the multiclass restrictions and changing the half-elf could.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Apok, post: 920076, member: 1969"] Y'know, I've gotta laugh. I just got finished writing a post defending WotC's position and I just realized that they are contradicting their own revision policy. You see, I was thinking that the designers were taking a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach to revisions, which would explain why they didn't drop the multiclass restrictions on the monk or paladin and why they didn't change the half-elf. However, they still thought to improve upon their original design by changing the facing rules! Those rules weren't broken, but they fixed them anyway just because they could! Every other change was made for some valid reason, [i]except this one[/i]! *rams head into brick wall* The only possible excuse they have is that changing the facing rules wouldn't perpetuate a major mechanics balance issue, while dropping the multiclass restrictions and changing the half-elf could. [/QUOTE]

Verification