Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6798733" data-attributes="member: 996">Considering the very slow, heavily-outsourced, publication strategy we see going forward that seems tantamount to blocking 'new stuff' entirely in the near term.&nbsp; They're also the only ones who can riff off those things or reference them, which could be a tad chilling when it comes to developing closely-related things.&nbsp; Especially given 5e's design paradigm, in which mechanics are more tightly coupled to the fluff they represent.&nbsp; Each publisher who wants to put out a few new maneuvers or a class or sub-class that uses maneuvers, instead having to create a novel maneuver system, rather than just tack onto the battlemaster's or throw a class a few CS dice.&nbsp; That would make the new content from each such publisher incompatible or at least, inconsistent, with eachother, and the base game.&nbsp; Conversely, adding a new school of wizardry or a new Domain, or a few new spells could be done fairly smoothly.&nbsp; &nbsp;There's been a lot of that going around since the edition war.It wouldn't be.&nbsp; It might not be that hard to come up with a better one than the Battlemaster has (JMHO, but it'd be hard not to do better, MDDs from the playtest, for instance).&nbsp; But, such a system would be untethered from the official game, while one that built on and improved the battlemaster system would have some level of compatibility and sense of continuity.&nbsp; We might very well get several very good alternate maneuver systems, none of which get any visibility, while a not-as-good extrapolation of battlemaster maneuvers might have a shot at broad acceptance.Overall it's inconsistent and complicated, but not yet bloated, much like the classic D&amp;D it captures the feel of so well, it's just familiar enough complexity that it's not a barrier to our enjoyment.&nbsp; <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=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6798733, member: 996"] Considering the very slow, heavily-outsourced, publication strategy we see going forward that seems tantamount to blocking 'new stuff' entirely in the near term. They're also the only ones who can riff off those things or reference them, which could be a tad chilling when it comes to developing closely-related things. Especially given 5e's design paradigm, in which mechanics are more tightly coupled to the fluff they represent. Each publisher who wants to put out a few new maneuvers or a class or sub-class that uses maneuvers, instead having to create a novel maneuver system, rather than just tack onto the battlemaster's or throw a class a few CS dice. That would make the new content from each such publisher incompatible or at least, inconsistent, with eachother, and the base game. Conversely, adding a new school of wizardry or a new Domain, or a few new spells could be done fairly smoothly. There's been a lot of that going around since the edition war. It wouldn't be. It might not be that hard to come up with a better one than the Battlemaster has (JMHO, but it'd be hard not to do better, MDDs from the playtest, for instance). But, such a system would be untethered from the official game, while one that built on and improved the battlemaster system would have some level of compatibility and sense of continuity. We might very well get several very good alternate maneuver systems, none of which get any visibility, while a not-as-good extrapolation of battlemaster maneuvers might have a shot at broad acceptance. Overall it's inconsistent and complicated, but not yet bloated, much like the classic D&D it captures the feel of so well, it's just familiar enough complexity that it's not a barrier to our enjoyment. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification