Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="helium3" data-source="post: 4071574" data-attributes="member: 31301">Yeppers. I'm pretty sure I stated in a post a ways back (like 2+ months ago) that the method by which the designers will simplify the game is by removing a lot of the unnecessary (in their eyes) complexity and that a lot of people would end up missing this complexity once they realized what its absence really meant. I think at the time I was specifically referring to resource management, but I suppose it could be extended to cover other instances.Well, I'm willing to bet that if you had a heart-to-heart and off-the-record conversation with the developers about this, they'd probably ask you why you want to play D&amp;D if you're interested in those archetypes. As the 4EFANS have so deliciously pointed out time and time again, D&amp;D is and has been 90% about combat. After all, the vast majority of the PHB is dedicated to resolving that issue.And you know what? I think it's a good thing if D&amp;D stops trying to be everything to everyone. Like I'm pretty sure I've said in other historical posts, the way people currently play D&amp;D is like trying to adapt Settlers of Catan to emulate a playstyle that's more like Yahtzee. I suppose you could do it, but you might just be better off playing Yahtzee.Yep. It's annoying. But they do bring up a good point. It's not like our opinions matter. Why bother expounding on something when it can have no effect on the outcome? Course, I'm fascinated by this whole experience, so I post just so I can participate.As for all the posts related to the &quot;logical argument&quot; that &quot;this is just a preview&quot; and that &quot;logically, there may be more material nullifies concerns about the seeming narrowness of the class&quot; I'd like to take a moment to point out that the above construct is not even a &quot;proof&quot; much less a &quot;logical proof.&quot; And really, here's the more interesting issue. Sure, there may be several pages of unreleased rogue material involving feats, other &quot;builds&quot;, other powers and so on that completely and totally address the various expressed concerns about the narrowness of the class. But what if there isn't? What if the preview more or less encapsulates the theme and styling of the 4E Rogue? Is that okay?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="helium3, post: 4071574, member: 31301"] Yeppers. I'm pretty sure I stated in a post a ways back (like 2+ months ago) that the method by which the designers will simplify the game is by removing a lot of the unnecessary (in their eyes) complexity and that a lot of people would end up missing this complexity once they realized what its absence really meant. I think at the time I was specifically referring to resource management, but I suppose it could be extended to cover other instances. Well, I'm willing to bet that if you had a heart-to-heart and off-the-record conversation with the developers about this, they'd probably ask you why you want to play D&D if you're interested in those archetypes. As the 4EFANS have so deliciously pointed out time and time again, D&D is and has been 90% about combat. After all, the vast majority of the PHB is dedicated to resolving that issue. And you know what? I think it's a good thing if D&D stops trying to be everything to everyone. Like I'm pretty sure I've said in other historical posts, the way people currently play D&D is like trying to adapt Settlers of Catan to emulate a playstyle that's more like Yahtzee. I suppose you could do it, but you might just be better off playing Yahtzee. Yep. It's annoying. But they do bring up a good point. It's not like our opinions matter. Why bother expounding on something when it can have no effect on the outcome? Course, I'm fascinated by this whole experience, so I post just so I can participate. As for all the posts related to the "logical argument" that "this is just a preview" and that "logically, there may be more material nullifies concerns about the seeming narrowness of the class" I'd like to take a moment to point out that the above construct is not even a "proof" much less a "logical proof." And really, here's the more interesting issue. Sure, there may be several pages of unreleased rogue material involving feats, other "builds", other powers and so on that completely and totally address the various expressed concerns about the narrowness of the class. But what if there isn't? What if the preview more or less encapsulates the theme and styling of the 4E Rogue? Is that okay? [/QUOTE]

Verification