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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9769893" data-attributes="member: 87792">Bastions are for a specific type of campaign and not one I'm running right now. And to be blunt they look about the quality of a random PF1e subsystem  that was included for a specific module.No. I want additions to a ruleset that expand my table whether or not they are for me personally. My go-to example here is the 4e Slayer which I would personally have found utterly boring but was glad it was there because it was the simple fighter that some people actually wanted to play. It meaningfully added to my games but only under the condition I wasn't the one playing it. But given that there were another couple of dozen classes including another take on the fighter I vastly preferred I was never going to have to.And this is where the WotC 70% approval rating for Unearthed Arcana is just plain stupid because it asks the wrong questions to promote innovation. The only real attempt WotC has made at an innovative class for 5e was the Mystic and it got voted down for two reasons, both deserved because WotC asked the wrong questions:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It needed at least two more iterations before it was ready for public playtesting. WotC's internal testing seems awful</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A good 25% of people down voted it because they don't want to play even a good version but would be happy for someone else to play one. But we're asked what they thought</li> </ol>The two together are pretty fatal.</blockquote>

Verification