NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 7665206" data-attributes="member: 6680772">I absolutely think that was the case.  The degree to which it mattered varied from table to table, but LFQW was a thing.  E6 came out in 2007 before 4e.  The Book of Nine Swords was an early draft version of 4e that they abandoned and reworked for 3e.  The demand was there.  However, the key is, "demand for more balance and more things for martials" doesn't equal "demand for powers".  4e powers were WotC's implementation of a response.  One that obviously not everyone embraced.Incidentally, I don't know if you followed the 5e playtest.  The wizard and the "neo-vancian" spellcasting system was established very early on, and accepted from early on.  It didn't really change that much after the first few playtest package.  But Fighters and Rogues...they had to be torn down and rebuilt several times.  The first versions of the classes were very simple, very much like their 2e and 3e versions: good attack-roll progression, mostly distinguished by their access to feats/themes.  But almost immediately demand for more interesting fighters and thieves emerged, and a good deal of the playtest revolved around getting those accepted by a significant majority of the audience.  To the point that some things that were meant to be in the playtest where taken out because they had to redo the fighter and rogue so many times.  I think that demand was there in the mid-2000s.  I think 4e's implementation pleased some of the demand, and failed to please the rest.</blockquote>

Verification