Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tquirky" data-source="post: 3903760" data-attributes="member: 57293">...and what else?&nbsp; Spiked chain wielding warlords?&nbsp; Eladrin?&nbsp; Emerald frost?&nbsp; It gets to the point where you go, &quot;why am I playing this game?&quot;&nbsp; The frustrating thing is that it's all so easily preventable by WOTC, if they actually wanted to prevent it.&nbsp; But they don't.&nbsp; Eberron shows their specific taste in the game, and now it's being injected into 4E, which is fine, there's room for Eberron for some.&nbsp; Problem is, by going specific, and objectionable, they shut out other tastes that would be served by something more generic.&nbsp; They could just leave things generic and leave the specific to a supplement as the other editions saw fit to do mostly, but no, we're getting specific in the PHB, so their aesthetics can be specifically rejected, and are harder to ignore or ban.&nbsp; It's a pity that their decision is final.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tquirky, post: 3903760, member: 57293"] ...and what else? Spiked chain wielding warlords? Eladrin? Emerald frost? It gets to the point where you go, "why am I playing this game?" The frustrating thing is that it's all so easily preventable by WOTC, if they actually wanted to prevent it. But they don't. Eberron shows their specific taste in the game, and now it's being injected into 4E, which is fine, there's room for Eberron for some. Problem is, by going specific, and objectionable, they shut out other tastes that would be served by something more generic. They could just leave things generic and leave the specific to a supplement as the other editions saw fit to do mostly, but no, we're getting specific in the PHB, so their aesthetics can be specifically rejected, and are harder to ignore or ban. It's a pity that their decision is final. [/QUOTE]

Verification