Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Preview: December and Beyond
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Malisteen" data-source="post: 5397134" data-attributes="member: 44380"><p>You know, I get tired of hearing this, so lets talk about it.</p><p></p><p>Absence of evidence <em>is</em> evidence of absence. It's circumstantial evidence, not conclusive evidence, but it <em>is</em> evidence. It's more or less the entire idea behind Occam's Razor. Absence of evidence isn't <em>proof</em> of absence, but if you search far and wide and gather all the information you can and find no evidence of something, even in places where you would expect to find it, then yeah that's evidence that maybe what you're looking for isn't there after all. If this book had actual classes, you could reasonably expect that fact to be mentioned by developers when they discuss the book at conventions. You could reasonably expect the fact to be mentioned in the previews. You could reasonably expect the fact to be advertised on the cover. The fact that there's no evidence supporting the idea of full classes in this book in any of the places you would expect such evidence to appear <em>is</em> evidence, if not proof, that there probably aren't full classes in this book, and the fact that pretty much all of the iconic shadow magic concepts have already been shoe-horned into builds that we already know about only supports that conclusion.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As am I. Necrotic is bad by default - a disadvantage for any power that uses it. It'll be hard to fix it. More or less, every build that focuses on its use needs to ignore resistance by default, or the powers just need to be stronger then other powers because they come with the necrotic drawback, and then on top of that there need to be feats and items that make it better, equivalent to those supporting cold, psychic, and radiant.</p><p></p><p>What I expect is that there will be a feat to ignore resistance and for that to be the sum total of support for necrotic. Which will mean it's still terrible, and those builds that rely on it subpar, as they have to burn a feat just to remove the drawback, where as characters using any other element could have spent that feat making their powers even better.</p><p></p><p>But who knows. My faith in WotC right now is about nil. They've gotten progressively better at 4e monster design, but everything else, from their digital support to their class design philosophies to the new treasure paradigm all has me looking forward to new releases less and less with every new product and preview I see.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Malisteen, post: 5397134, member: 44380"] You know, I get tired of hearing this, so lets talk about it. Absence of evidence [i]is[/i] evidence of absence. It's circumstantial evidence, not conclusive evidence, but it [i]is[/i] evidence. It's more or less the entire idea behind Occam's Razor. Absence of evidence isn't [i]proof[/i] of absence, but if you search far and wide and gather all the information you can and find no evidence of something, even in places where you would expect to find it, then yeah that's evidence that maybe what you're looking for isn't there after all. If this book had actual classes, you could reasonably expect that fact to be mentioned by developers when they discuss the book at conventions. You could reasonably expect the fact to be mentioned in the previews. You could reasonably expect the fact to be advertised on the cover. The fact that there's no evidence supporting the idea of full classes in this book in any of the places you would expect such evidence to appear [i]is[/i] evidence, if not proof, that there probably aren't full classes in this book, and the fact that pretty much all of the iconic shadow magic concepts have already been shoe-horned into builds that we already know about only supports that conclusion. As am I. Necrotic is bad by default - a disadvantage for any power that uses it. It'll be hard to fix it. More or less, every build that focuses on its use needs to ignore resistance by default, or the powers just need to be stronger then other powers because they come with the necrotic drawback, and then on top of that there need to be feats and items that make it better, equivalent to those supporting cold, psychic, and radiant. What I expect is that there will be a feat to ignore resistance and for that to be the sum total of support for necrotic. Which will mean it's still terrible, and those builds that rely on it subpar, as they have to burn a feat just to remove the drawback, where as characters using any other element could have spent that feat making their powers even better. But who knows. My faith in WotC right now is about nil. They've gotten progressively better at 4e monster design, but everything else, from their digital support to their class design philosophies to the new treasure paradigm all has me looking forward to new releases less and less with every new product and preview I see. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Preview: December and Beyond
Top