Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ajar" data-source="post: 5597374" data-attributes="member: 85901">Because WotC didn't say that the beastmaster would be "the baseline experience for the game going forward." They didn't marginalize pre-beastmaster Ranger builds in favour of supporting the beastmaster (until community outcry arguably forced them to relent). They didn't shuffle pre-beastmaster builds off to a corner of the CB. They didn't lump all pre-beastmaster builds under a single subclass name. They didn't greatly slow down support for pre-beastmaster builds in published products. Those are significant differences. I'll also note that I and many others expressed our concerns <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/284695-essential-knight-15.html#post5261099" target="_blank">as far back as the Essentials previews.</a> And what I said about hybrid and multiclassing with Essentials builds has pretty much happened, if you look at the playtest. To be fair, though, I think Essentials has been much more successful than I expected. So it appears to have been good business, at the very least, and since I want WotC to keep making D&D, that's good. I also don't dislike Essentials, beyond that developing it takes resources away from builds that interest me more as a player. And I can't deny that some of the Essentials stuff does interest me -- Executioner poisons, a good amount of HoS, and a few other pieces. I'd have no problem with DMing a mixed party or even an all-Essentials party. So I'm not all doom and gloom. But I don't think it's fair to say that the critics of Essentials don't have reasonable grounds for their concerns, which is what I take from the bold and oversized questions I see on this page. The online community has reached a critical mass, so people who are of like mind on this issue can talk to one another.</blockquote>

Verification