Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 9072770" data-attributes="member: 23484">It is clear to me that they are reading and responding to feedback, and that there is possibility for nuance in our responses.Where there's risk is in knee-jerk condemnation of things that could be improved but are not there yet. Just being negative or making ridiculously overblown rhetorical sweeps risks losing any improvement. At heart, the designers are going to go conservative and not innovate if new ideas are just slammed down.We've seen it with the subclass levels: Keeping the different levels for different classes is a conservatism they aren't going to fight for [i.e. fight to avoid], given the desire among a vocal group for &quot;backwards compatibility&quot; (a concept variously defined but raised by many as a sacred cow). And so we lose out on innovation, and the possibility of improvement.We've seen it with Wild Shape. The proposal for templates was initially weak, and got slammed. So they're giving us what we had before, even though (as discussions on these boards and elsewhere have shown this past week) there's appeal for a few specific templates that can improve as the druid levels up. If we're lucky, and if we provide thoughtful feedback, there's a chance we can get it. But just slamming what they've given us? Then they'll play safe, and just replicate what's in the PHB 2014. Just knocking things reduces innovation and is a voice for conservatism. I'd much rather see new ideas and improvement, and so my comments will praise what Iike (a lot -- this was the most promising package we've seen yet), but argue for changes on the things that don't work for me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kobold Stew, post: 9072770, member: 23484"] It is clear to me that they are reading and responding to feedback, and that there is possibility for nuance in our responses. Where there's risk is in knee-jerk condemnation of things that could be improved but are not there yet. Just being negative or making ridiculously overblown rhetorical sweeps risks losing any improvement. At heart, the designers are going to go conservative and not innovate if new ideas are just slammed down. We've seen it with the subclass levels: Keeping the different levels for different classes is a conservatism they aren't going to fight for [i.e. fight to avoid], given the desire among a vocal group for "backwards compatibility" (a concept variously defined but raised by many as a sacred cow). And so we lose out on innovation, and the possibility of improvement. We've seen it with Wild Shape. The proposal for templates was initially weak, and got slammed. So they're giving us what we had before, even though (as discussions on these boards and elsewhere have shown this past week) there's appeal for a few specific templates that can improve as the druid levels up. If we're lucky, and if we provide thoughtful feedback, there's a chance we can get it. But just slamming what they've given us? Then they'll play safe, and just replicate what's in the PHB 2014. Just knocking things reduces innovation and is a voice for conservatism. I'd much rather see new ideas and improvement, and so my comments will praise what Iike (a lot -- this was the most promising package we've seen yet), but argue for changes on the things that don't work for me. [/QUOTE]

Verification