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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6729528" data-attributes="member: 6790260">So...a thing which completely pleases one side, but largely displeases the other side, qualifies as a compromise? I disagree. I also question how "huge" this chunk of players actually is--particularly when it is so easy to implement the change, and it is even easier to flag it with all the "don't use this if you don't want it" stuff. Which the devs, during the playtest, were perfectly happy to do.Feel free to post your survey data to reflect that. Others have already posted the survey data I'm speaking of. I can also show you developer tweets, from the playtest, where Mearls explicitly said that the "Fighter Warlord" could heal others and that you allow it in your campaign if you want that."But if they put out one little thing and after all this time it is a complete reversal back to the approach that drove me and so many others away from the brand, that would be a major signal of trouble." What is "driving you away," if not offensive content?The trouble is, you're not telling me to be adaptive. You're telling me to put up--or shut up. Bit of a difference there.I was being sarcastic. The "master stroke" was the combination of "during the playtest, people justified avoidance of 4e stuff by saying it would come later" with "now that later has come, people are justifying the avoidance of 4e stuff by saying the release schedule would annoy them if even a single 4e thing were included in it." The circle is closed; the prophecy is self-fulfilled. I can't ever get what I want, because initially, it was too early; now, it's too late; and in-between even I recognize there was no time for it. Your preferences won to begin with--no "Warlord" appeared in the PHB, and the vast majority of dev "suggestions" about what the "Fighter Warlord" could do never paid off. And now, your preferences continue to take center stage, because the creation of any new content must please you, too. A sort of temporal "heads I win, tails you lose" situation."How dare you" was a hyperbolic way of presenting your position, "If you like 4e, play 4e--don't try to get things you want added to 5e." Your position strongly implies that 5e cannot, or should not, grow or expand when someone feels that there's something missing or not fully present in it, whether you wish to imply that or not. It's exclusionary--"go back to your interests, don't try new things or expect change."I stand by my other response though. That you don't like something potentially being added to 5e, does not mean it can't or shouldn't be--but your post pretty much says exactly that. Asking for optional rules that better reflect a thing I like...is an ultimatum that drives people away from the game? Uh, no. It creates new space, without altering the space that already exists. As much as you want to paint it as a zero-sum game, it really, truly isn't. Characterizing "you didn't actually get anything of what you wanted, and what little is like what you wanted was specifically tailored to please, or avoid offending, other fans more than it was to please you" as a "compromise" is not accurate, IMHO.That you would be unhappy because the purely-optional content includes one thing that doesn't interest you (or even anti-interests you), doesn't prove or even support the idea that it shouldn't be done. There are lots of people who straight-up hate psionics, but it's going to happen.</blockquote>

Verification