Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 6095424" data-attributes="member: 22882">Why do you think this, Mike? The worst mechanical problems with 3e (the imbalance between spellcasters and non-casters) and 4e (the relative weakness of the paladin and warlock, some poorly worded ranger powers that ended up needing errata) were both in the first Player's Handbook. In two editions that focused on character-building content I can think of all of one serious, at-the-table problem broken option released in a supplement, Divine Metamagic.**I can think of quite a few that broke too weak, like Complete Warrior's Samurai or the unfortunate Tome of Magic Binder, but those generally aren't a serious problem at the table.Leaving aside for a moment whether or not it's good for the rules of the game, it seems like it would be bad for the sales of the game. This is a 180 on how Wizards has handled the D&amp;D game line since the launch of 3.0. The intent with that release was to let 3rd party publishers produce the lion's share of settings and adventures because market research showed those products, while often helpful for a game, didn't sell as well as character options. Has that changed in the last decade and a half?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoogleEmpMog, post: 6095424, member: 22882"] Why do you think this, Mike? The worst mechanical problems with 3e (the imbalance between spellcasters and non-casters) and 4e (the relative weakness of the paladin and warlock, some poorly worded ranger powers that ended up needing errata) were both in the first Player's Handbook. In two editions that focused on character-building content I can think of all of one serious, at-the-table problem broken option released in a supplement, Divine Metamagic.* *I can think of quite a few that broke too [I]weak[/I], like Complete Warrior's Samurai or the unfortunate Tome of Magic Binder, but those generally aren't a serious problem at the table. Leaving aside for a moment whether or not it's good for the rules of the game, it seems like it would be bad for the [I]sales[/I] of the game. This is a 180 on how Wizards has handled the D&D game line since the launch of 3.0. The intent with that release was to let 3rd party publishers produce the lion's share of settings and adventures because market research showed those products, while often helpful for a game, didn't sell as well as character options. Has that changed in the last decade and a half? [/QUOTE]

Verification