Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5269531" data-attributes="member: 996">Which also wouldn't be quite what they're claiming now.&nbsp; Today they say &quot;we're done printing the PH, we have plenty of 'em,&quot; laster they might say &quot;oh, we were mistaken about the demand for the PH, here's a new printing with all the errata.&quot;But, if they came right out and said &quot;we'll re-print the PH with errata someday,&quot; fewer folks are going to be enclined to take those existing copies off their hands, which is a loss. Is WotC being entirely honest with us?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Could they be?&nbsp; Not really.&nbsp; Would they be in business today if they always had been entirely honest about everything?&nbsp; Not a chance.&nbsp; Builds that don't represent anything not already covered by Essentials classes.&nbsp; The Knight is a meat shield in heavy armor who protects his allies while wielding a weapon &amp; shield.&nbsp; A 'Defender build' Fighter is a meat shield in heavy armor who protects his allies while wielding a weapon &amp; shield.&nbsp; A Warpriest is a holy warrior who heals (and even raises) his allies while braining his enemies with a mace.&nbsp; A 'War Cleric build' is a holy warrior who heals his allies while braining his enemies with a mace, and may or may not have remembered to buy the Raise Dead ritual.&nbsp; Yeah, the PH builds have all kinds of fiddly powers - and fiddly errata - but they're essentially doing the same thing as the corresonding Essentials classes.&nbsp;&nbsp; Well, they'll get the reciprocal of what PH customers get when they buy Essentials.&nbsp; If you already have the PH, and you buy the Essentials line, you're getting most of the rules in the PH, with errata, and some redundant builds that represent 'the design philosophy going forward.'&nbsp; If you have Essentials, the PH offers you some rules you already have, without errata, and some redundant builds using a design philosophy WotC has abanadoned - and, incidentally, a class/build or two that aren't redundant (but use the 'old' design philosophy).How great do either of those options really sound?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5269531, member: 996"] Which also wouldn't be quite what they're claiming now. Today they say "we're done printing the PH, we have plenty of 'em," laster they might say "oh, we were mistaken about the demand for the PH, here's a new printing with all the errata." But, if they came right out and said "we'll re-print the PH with errata someday," fewer folks are going to be enclined to take those existing copies off their hands, which is a loss. Is WotC being entirely honest with us? No. Could they be? Not really. Would they be in business today if they always had been entirely honest about everything? Not a chance. Builds that don't represent anything not already covered by Essentials classes. The Knight is a meat shield in heavy armor who protects his allies while wielding a weapon & shield. A 'Defender build' Fighter is a meat shield in heavy armor who protects his allies while wielding a weapon & shield. A Warpriest is a holy warrior who heals (and even raises) his allies while braining his enemies with a mace. A 'War Cleric build' is a holy warrior who heals his allies while braining his enemies with a mace, and may or may not have remembered to buy the Raise Dead ritual. Yeah, the PH builds have all kinds of fiddly powers - and fiddly errata - but they're essentially doing the same thing as the corresonding Essentials classes. Well, they'll get the reciprocal of what PH customers get when they buy Essentials. If you already have the PH, and you buy the Essentials line, you're getting most of the rules in the PH, with errata, and some redundant builds that represent 'the design philosophy going forward.' If you have Essentials, the PH offers you some rules you already have, without errata, and some redundant builds using a design philosophy WotC has abanadoned - and, incidentally, a class/build or two that aren't redundant (but use the 'old' design philosophy). How great do either of those options really sound? [/QUOTE]

Verification