Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5505350" data-attributes="member: 2067">No, actually, from their perspective, and from WotC's perspective, that's not okay. One does not sell millions of units by saying "Go play some other game if you don't like it." Standing on pointless principle is destructive in a mix as rich and varied as D&D. This is part of what Mearls seems to be saying here: D&D has a varied audience who want different things from the game, and D&D needs to be able to address as many of those needs as they can. Which is why D&D includes things from Gamma World to board games to Essentials and many notes in between. D&D is not just one thing. Which means "My way or the highway" isn't going to work if they want to reach as many players as possible. It is easy -- so easy -- to just take the highway. Purity of principle has its place. Art. Religion. Hell, your own table, if that's what you want. But your table is not D&D, it is a small sub-segment, and it is not representative of everyone that D&D is trying to reach. No one is making you give up your fighter dailies if you want them.I really don't know how WotC could be more explicit about this. They don't seem to be eager to produce a Martial Power 3, but I'm not sure anyone needs another 4 fighter powers per level anyway. More options will not reduce your current available options, which currently have the most options. I get now that some people have a (misguided, IMO) greatly intense dislike of a violation of 4e's rigid powers structure.I don't see how you go from that to "Everyone who wants something out of this game that I dislike should be expelled from the game!"I have a greatly intense dislike of Fortune Cards (or at least their randomized booster collectible aspect). I don't think that those who like them are wrong for liking them. It's fine that they're in the game, and even though I won't use them, others can, and I'll be content with that. I would have a stronger opinion if fortune cards were somehow required to play the game, but they're an option, an addition, something I can take or leave as I see fit.The same is true of Essentials. Nobody is taking away your existing fighter dailies, which, by the way, there are 165 of currently. Compared to the wizard (156) and the cleric (144), the fighter is in NO risk of running out of options any time soon.In fact, an Experiment:[sblock=Experiment! Science!]If you gain a level once per month, it takes about 2 and a half years to gain 30 levels with one character. In that time, you will gain roughly 10 chances to have a daily power (including utilities). So in two years, your character can gain 10 daily powers. To get through every option, you would have to play more than 16 fighters, and playfor over 40 years. Functionally speaking, you could play nothing but fighters for the rest of your life, every single week, and never have to choose the same daily twice. You are not deprived of options![/sblock]You disagree with the design philosophy? Fine. Good for you, even. Don't let it at your table, and engage in constructive conversation about it as much as you are able. Don't begrudge those who do like it, though. Ultimately, as Mearls is pointing out here, D&D needs to be diverse to appeal to a diverse crowd. Diversity includes the way you play, but it also probably includes ways you HATE to play. They're coming along for the ride anyway. Disagree with them, protest them, but don't say they have no right to play.</blockquote>

Verification