Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9149044" data-attributes="member: 6667921">One of the design goals for introducing implements was to give "spell casters" cool magic items to use that were not just more spells in a can. Before 4e, martial/combat characters were compensated with a larger, more interesting selection of magic weapons, armors, and items with interesting and diverse properties in an attempt to stay relative in the game as wizards, druids, and clerics dominated the game at higher levels with more spells, more magic, and more power without item boosts. Since 4e leveled the playing field for all classes, it only made sense that they should all be equally reliant (and rewarded) with a fair share of interesting, useful, and exciting magic items.That said, Essentials inadvertently skewed that with their new classes being designed simultaneously in too many spaces. First, they wanted to make them familiar to old-school classes (which I think goes against the original philosophy and appeal of 4e for many fans). Then they wanted to make them more focused and efficient, reducing the number of decision points for players (as if they were doing everyone else a favor). But they also wanted to make sure everything worked with all the previous material, which is where a lot of compromises and problems were created.The way I see things is you can't move forward if you don't stop looking back. Essentials could have been an opportunity to correct course as an alternate path rather than force it into a space that didn't need it. Of course, that makes no sense to business mind, but frankly, I don't care what a business thinks. If you care more about the profit than the product, it will show. I have never been less interested in new DnD content and products since I started playing back in the 80s than right now, and I know I am not alone in this.(Somehow this turned into a rant, but I meant everything I said so I'm going to let it ride because I'm tired of being quiet about it.)</blockquote>

Verification