NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6195390" data-attributes="member: 2525">First, it's nonsense to be talking about additional pages here.  The items will be listed regardless of their organization.  We're talking about adding a single header to four groups of items, and a fifth header to "the rest". That's it.  It's purely an organizational tool, composed of these words, "Rogue Items; Mage Items; Fighter Items; Cleric Items; Other Items", or something like that. It's a total of 10 words we're talking about, repeated in the index.As to your either/or claim, I guess we're not communicating.  An online tool would be plenty handy, and it could do more.  However, having that organization in the book has utility because I am usually not at my computer when reading a book, and the purpose of the hardcopy book is to read it.  Your argument could just as easily apply to the book itself - why publish a hardcopy book when you can just publish the rules purely online, with no page count requirements at all? You had to know that answer - so why are you making that kind of either/or claim about hardcopy vs. online organizational tools with this issue? It's hopefully both of course.Or you're planning on USING A BOOK, like almost the entire history of D&D has done for decades.Or preferred using the BOOK YOU BOUGHT, like almost the entire history of D&D has done for decades.I am saying I care about it, someone else said they care about it, WOTC seems to see some utility in that traditional delineation and they're making decisions based on extensive playtesting and professional analysis and survey data.  So, I am guessing they have good reason to believe many people like it.Which is generally how one uses a rulebook.Almost all your arguments apply to the book itself, and not just this issue.  Why even print the book, if your arguments were good ones?</blockquote>

Verification