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="Clefton Twain" data-source="post: 2988184" data-attributes="member: 1138">To some extent, I think you're right. But there is definitely a breed of consumers who will not jump on the bandwagon at the drop of a hat. Obviously WotC would be betting on the type of person who will gobble up anything and everything. I tend to pick and choose what I want--this adds up to about 3-4 books a year. Mostly this is because of either poor design, uninteresting subject matter, or lack of anything I can actually use. My gaming group tends to share books so that only one person ends up buying about half of the books we use.In a slightly related rant:[rant]One thing I think WotC really needs to pay more attention to is the actual GAME DESIGN. I am still very unhappy with the fact that they have to release errata for so many of their products. I don't really care about typos or grammatical errors (though, being a former journalist, these really bug me a lot when they're in an official book I'm supposed to want to buy). When they royally mess up game mechanics it's a problem. What's worse is when they do this and then force you to buy another book to get the *real* fix.They also tend to develop books in a proverbial vacuum. This usually results in two different spells, feats, prestige classes etc. with the same name, or two different versions of said rule. Some of the current spells have gone through FIVE iterations in five different books. In a one particular instance, there was a spell that was revamped and fixed in the Spell Compendium, only to be reverted back to its original form in Fiendish Codex I. Obviously I know which version to use but why did this happen? There have been 3.5 books released in just the last couple of years that still included old, out-of-date rules (one or two have included original 3e material that was obsolete). This is usually because WotC have been sitting on the book for a while, I think. Taking into consideration the whole publishing process it is probably unavoidable. But this is why the rule needs to be correct the first go-around.This has been a problem from the get-go and I think it's only getting worse. I can't very well copy and paste errata into physical books so I type up the rules for myself so that I can change them every other week when WotC's "patches" come out.[/rant]--CT</blockquote>

Verification