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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9346250" data-attributes="member: 18">I can, and I can absolutely give specific examples, because I remember a lot of times WotC absolutely did exactly what people on here were saying - for example, people thought the 2024 Thief thing where they only got SA once per round (rather than per turn) was dumb as hell here, and WotC changed it. People generally but not overwhelmingly didn't like the "generic forms" approach to the 2024 Druid and WotC reported exactly that, that people didn't hate the idea but also disliked it enough they needed a different approach. Several subclasses that got cut it was completely unsurprising that they did given the response here - the 2024 Brawler Fighter for example - even people here who liked it, like me, found the mechanics pretty bad, and most people didn't like it, and lo and behold, WotC cut it. I could go on and on.And that's just 2024, but this holds for a lot longer than that. The Mystic, for example, people had a lot of ludicrous and ill-formed objections to, objections which really would apply to any class of a "full caster"-ish kind (as I always say, if Wizard or Bard or Druid hadn't already been a 5E class, and WotC tried to add it, it would 100% definitely have failed to meet the 70% approval threshold), and WotC reported back that this was exactly the sort of thing people were concerned about.But there have been a lot of other times where WotC have been less clear. Like, they cut a bunch of stuff from Strixhaven, but they also didn't claim it was because of the 70% threshold or anything, and given people generally seemed to like the stuff they cut, I rather suspect it wasn't, but rather was cut for length/complexity (which is ok, I mean it's their game to make mistakes with, but different).</blockquote>

Verification