Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Legends and Lore: What's With the Polls?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5503786" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Frankly, the mere introduction of Fortune Cards, alone, gives the lie to the assertion that Essentials is meant for a 'simpler' gaming experience. Fortune Cards add another phase to your turn, and a new dimension to optimizing your character. Not exactly slaying the complexity dragon, there. </p><p></p><p>The results of the poll were illuminating. About 70% rejected not the Essentials fighter, but a hypothetical fighter that /remained perfectly balanced/ and 'didn't feel overshadowed,' even while being stripped of options. So it was a hypothetical perfectly-executed, extreme form of the E-fighter that was rejected - soundly.</p><p></p><p>About 15% liked it, and the other 15% didn't really care. (actualy numbers were 71.1%, 14.5%, and 14.4%, for any purists out there - yes that's combining certain responses)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Then there was the left-field gnome argument. Really just a re-hash of the "ah just wanna hit da orc wit mah ax" annecdote. OK, there are some folks who claim they want to play optionless Fighters - quite specifically, never optionless sorcerers or clerics or whatever - so let's cater to them. Well, if that were the case, then there will be no need for future support of the E-martial classes, they're simple, you wouldn't want to make them more complex, and those folks should be happy with them, just as they are, evergreen and unexpanded, for the remaining life of the edition (even if that really is more than a year or two). </p><p></p><p>OTOH, if WotC continues to dive full-bore into creating simplistic classes, and supports the E-martial classes instead of the real martial classes from the PH1, well, that's not just catering to some folks that want a simple fighter. That'd be changing the nature of the fighter (and the game as a whole) over the objections of a sizeable majority of the fans. </p><p></p><p>Frankly, if you've clawed you way up to cheif developer for the the premier RPG of all time, you may very well feel you've earned the right to shape the game to your personal vision.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5503786, member: 996"] Frankly, the mere introduction of Fortune Cards, alone, gives the lie to the assertion that Essentials is meant for a 'simpler' gaming experience. Fortune Cards add another phase to your turn, and a new dimension to optimizing your character. Not exactly slaying the complexity dragon, there. The results of the poll were illuminating. About 70% rejected not the Essentials fighter, but a hypothetical fighter that /remained perfectly balanced/ and 'didn't feel overshadowed,' even while being stripped of options. So it was a hypothetical perfectly-executed, extreme form of the E-fighter that was rejected - soundly. About 15% liked it, and the other 15% didn't really care. (actualy numbers were 71.1%, 14.5%, and 14.4%, for any purists out there - yes that's combining certain responses) Then there was the left-field gnome argument. Really just a re-hash of the "ah just wanna hit da orc wit mah ax" annecdote. OK, there are some folks who claim they want to play optionless Fighters - quite specifically, never optionless sorcerers or clerics or whatever - so let's cater to them. Well, if that were the case, then there will be no need for future support of the E-martial classes, they're simple, you wouldn't want to make them more complex, and those folks should be happy with them, just as they are, evergreen and unexpanded, for the remaining life of the edition (even if that really is more than a year or two). OTOH, if WotC continues to dive full-bore into creating simplistic classes, and supports the E-martial classes instead of the real martial classes from the PH1, well, that's not just catering to some folks that want a simple fighter. That'd be changing the nature of the fighter (and the game as a whole) over the objections of a sizeable majority of the fans. Frankly, if you've clawed you way up to cheif developer for the the premier RPG of all time, you may very well feel you've earned the right to shape the game to your personal vision. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Legends and Lore: What's With the Polls?
Top