Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 5272242" data-attributes="member: 32164">&quot;It's magic and that's how it works.&quot;Done. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />A dodge? Yeah. But it's one that's true to the source material.And I admit that the knight, thief, and slayer are still bound to the per encounter mechanic. But I can explain that one to a player with one sentence.&quot;Per encounter things are like special moves that you can only get away with once in a short period of time, because after you do it once, people are watching for it, so you have to fall back on your regular stuff.&quot;Dailies...ummm...&quot;circumstances only occasionally align that way.&quot; Why? &quot;Because...&quot;My contention on what WotC's market research says is simple: as a business, they've used it. If classes that work this way are in the products targeted at new players, there's a good reason for it. And it isn't &quot;Mike Mearls wanted to screw fighters&quot; or &quot;WotC's trying to win back 3e players.&quot;Sure, the latter may be PART of the reason, but i think WotC's probably written most of those folks off. But if they've got research that says these classes will broaden the game's appeal with new players, and it also makes things more familiar to Basic D&amp;D, 1e, and 2e players; I doubt they'd object if it had some special appeal to 3e players who didn't make the switch to 4e, but didn't upgrade to Pathfinder either.Look at the TRS video. Those guys started with 3.5, and they're WAY more impressed by the Red Box than I think they would have been by default PHB/DMG/MM 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 5272242, member: 32164"] "It's magic and that's how it works." Done. ;) A dodge? Yeah. But it's one that's true to the source material. And I admit that the knight, thief, and slayer are still bound to the per encounter mechanic. But I can explain that one to a player with one sentence. "Per encounter things are like special moves that you can only get away with once in a short period of time, because after you do it once, people are watching for it, so you have to fall back on your regular stuff." Dailies...ummm..."circumstances only occasionally align that way." Why? "Because..." My contention on what WotC's market research says is simple: as a business, they've used it. If classes that work this way are in the products targeted at new players, there's a good reason for it. And it isn't "Mike Mearls wanted to screw fighters" or "WotC's trying to win back 3e players." Sure, the latter may be PART of the reason, but i think WotC's probably written most of those folks off. But if they've got research that says these classes will broaden the game's appeal with new players, and it also makes things more familiar to Basic D&D, 1e, and 2e players; I doubt they'd object if it had some special appeal to 3e players who didn't make the switch to 4e, but didn't upgrade to [I]Pathfinder[/I] either. Look at the TRS video. Those guys started with 3.5, and they're WAY more impressed by the [I]Red Box[/I] than I think they would have been by default PHB/DMG/MM 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification