Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8454738" data-attributes="member: 18">Sure, my impression is from the general discussion of them across multiple forums and Discords. I can't pretend to have a "representative sample". Sadly no-one except perhaps WotC do.And WotC decided that, for whatever reason, ASIs needed changing before even a half-edition or the like.My experience is that whilst complainers will initiate discussions and be louder about things, in established communities people who like a thing will roll out to defend that thing, often in numbers, albeit with less vehemence. And when a game company threatens a beloved thing, the defenders will go loud. I've seen this across decades of internet arguments about games.The defenders going loud is not what I've see with ASIs.Rather instead of defending them people tended to suggest alternative changes (or even removing them entirely), and even when WotC decided they were coming for them I saw very few posts here or elsewhere defending the exact status quo. Some people like the concept of fixed ASIs, but even they often strongly disliked the current WotC implementation (the failure to use penalties was much criticised).I'm sure some percentage liked the status quo, but based on what I've seen, and accounting for squeaky wheels (but also "WotC are coming for this feature! Rally! Rally!") , it was a small one compared to say 5E approaches to class design or even, I hate to admit it, 5E approaches to semi-Vancian casting. Hell, I feel like more people like Monks as they are than ASIs.Personally I was surprised because I expected people to be really mad. Personally I didn't even think above removing or letting players change them before the discussion. Fish don't know about water and all that. But once it started I knew I wanted them to be changed and would have been happy with a number of outcomes (free choice, class based, removed, etc.).I don't know if this convinces you of anything but I hope it shows it isn't an entirely idle and ill-considered opinion on my part.</blockquote>

Verification