Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6553648" data-attributes="member: 2525">For at least the third time, I will explain why you don't get to define what the thread is about, what responses fit within your definition, and what is of consequence to people.&nbsp; If you don't find value in my posts, then simply don't respond to them.If the REASON people give for it being important for WOTC to publish support books is &quot;because I want stuff to play with&quot;, then it is highly relevant if there is other stuff to play with regardless of whether or not it's from WOTC.&nbsp; Because it addresses the position of &quot;Stuff to play with&quot;.&nbsp; If you want to make an argument as to why it matters more that it say WOTC on the cover, please make that argument - or at least make that argument better than what's been made already.&nbsp; But, stop telling people what they can and cannot talk about, particularly when everything I've said has been raised by others in this very thread.Also, please stop mis-characterizing my argument as being just about third parties.&nbsp; I listed these as well:The core books (PHB, MM, DMG)Three official BIG adventures (Phandelver, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Rise of Tiamat), and a fourth on the way in less than a month (Princes of the Apocalypse).Four good playtest adventures which are incredibly easy to adapt to current rules (Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, Legacy of the Crystal Shard, Murder in Baldur's Gate, Scourge of the Sword Coast). DM's ScreenSpell CardsAnd that's not counting the existing conversion notes WOTC published for numerous older adventures with the playtest that would be easily converted.And that's not counting all the articles that include hard, crunch-based rules for 5e, like the mass combat rules.That's all &quot;official support&quot;.&nbsp; How does that compare to the first three months of 3.0e? How does that compare to the first three months of 3.5e? How does that compare to the first three months of 4e? How does that compare to the first three months of PF? Those are all relevant questions.The bottom line is I think it's false to claim D&amp;D 5e is seeing no support, whether you call that support official or not.&nbsp; I don't even think it's even all that slow.&nbsp; I just think the KIND of support some people want is missing.&nbsp; I strongly suspect this issue is really about settings and splat books.&nbsp; If that is the case, people should just say so.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6553648, member: 2525"] For at least the third time, I will explain why you don't get to define what the thread is about, what responses fit within your definition, and what is of consequence to people. If you don't find value in my posts, then simply don't respond to them. If the REASON people give for it being important for WOTC to publish support books is "because I want stuff to play with", then it is highly relevant if there is other stuff to play with regardless of whether or not it's from WOTC. Because it addresses the position of "Stuff to play with". If you want to make an argument as to why it matters more that it say WOTC on the cover, please make that argument - or at least make that argument better than what's been made already. But, stop telling people what they can and cannot talk about, particularly when everything I've said has been raised by others in this very thread. Also, please stop mis-characterizing my argument as being just about third parties. I listed these as well: The core books (PHB, MM, DMG) Three official BIG adventures (Phandelver, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Rise of Tiamat), and a fourth on the way in less than a month (Princes of the Apocalypse). Four good playtest adventures which are incredibly easy to adapt to current rules (Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle, Legacy of the Crystal Shard, Murder in Baldur's Gate, Scourge of the Sword Coast). DM's Screen Spell Cards And that's not counting the existing conversion notes WOTC published for numerous older adventures with the playtest that would be easily converted. And that's not counting all the articles that include hard, crunch-based rules for 5e, like the mass combat rules. That's all "official support". How does that compare to the first three months of 3.0e? How does that compare to the first three months of 3.5e? How does that compare to the first three months of 4e? How does that compare to the first three months of PF? Those are all relevant questions. The bottom line is I think it's false to claim D&D 5e is seeing no support, whether you call that support official or not. I don't even think it's even all that slow. I just think the KIND of support some people want is missing. I strongly suspect this issue is really about settings and splat books. If that is the case, people should just say so. [/QUOTE]

Verification