Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="glass" data-source="post: 8725494" data-attributes="member: 12251">If the claim had been "a lot of people believe (falsely) that 4e classes all have identical mechanics", then I would not have argued. A lot of people do believe that, due in no small part to oft-repeated claims on the Internet like the ones I have been rebutting.Ah, Beastmaster. That makes more sense than "Headmaster"!Anyway, I suspect that you are right that that, as an individual product, would sell very well. However, WotC seem to believe that mixing up player-facing and GM-facing content in each (with the obvious exception of adventures) is better for the health of the gameline and therefore long-term sales than producing books that are entirely player-facing (or almost so), which a book with five new classes in it would inevitably be. Even if the latter type of book would sell better on its own. And I suspect they are probably right about that.That said, their aversion to new classes in general is rather extreme.We'll see how emphatic about backward compatibility they actually are when the anniversary books come out. But in the meantime, they certainly were not worrying about backwards compatibility in 2014 when did not so much avoid compatibility with the edition being replaced as shoot it in the head, cremate the corpse, and salt the ground where it had been standing just to be sure._glass.</blockquote>