D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

Whilst I agree in general (Psionics: just pick one and push it through, never going to please everyone), I do feel it's important for WotC not to try and occupy all the available design space, and leave room for 3PP.

And when they do takes risks (e.g. Stryxhaven) WotC attracts a lot more abuse than 3PP.

I would say the Deck of Many Things turned out to be far more risky than WotC anticipated!
It might be important for WotC not to try and occupy all the available design space (in fact I'm quite sure it is), but I'm far from convinced it's important to WotC. I think Hasbro would be perfectly happy to see all 3pp dry up and blow away.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


It might be important for WotC not to try and occupy all the available design space (in fact I'm quite sure it is), but I'm far from convinced it's important to WotC. I think Hasbro would be perfectly happy to see all 3pp dry up and blow away.

Their release schedule, their plainly stubborn refusal to add the content, would seem to disagree with this analysis.
 





Like... fighter?
If you want to play a diude that stands there with a sword and board and faces down giants and dragons and stuff, it is right there. If you want to play a dude that flies intoa battle frenzy that lets him ignore pain and deal hurt, or has a hyper focus that allows him to stun enemies and leap chasms, those are there too. They just don't have the name "fighter." Play the mechanics you want to play to support your preferences, rather than complain that "fighter" in your head means something different than what is in the book. The image in your head is your responsibility, not the designers' or the GM's.
 

I'd love to hear it anyway, in the interest of honest discussion.
WOTC doesn't want to print content that competes directly with the PHB or DMG content unless it's a fix to keep PHB sales flowing.

3PPs believe it is easily to sell Magic Knight Fighter subclasses and caster classes than Non-supernatural Fighter subclasses.
 

If you want to play a diude that stands there with a sword and board and faces down giants and dragons and stuff, it is right there. If you want to play a dude that flies intoa battle frenzy that lets him ignore pain and deal hurt, or has a hyper focus that allows him to stun enemies and leap chasms, those are there too. They just don't have the name "fighter." Play the mechanics you want to play to support your preferences, rather than complain that "fighter" in your head means something different than what is in the book. The image in your head is your responsibility, not the designers' or the GM's.
I want to play a weapon master like you see in movies and TV and That's not there.

There's no weapon master in pop culture that mindlessly attacks with no tactics or tricks. and you can say Battlemaster, but the attrition mechanic makes it so you're only that guy a few times and then you're back to the boring attack machine that NO fight choreographer would allow to be boarded, let alone shot. and the only way to get back to being the character you're meant to be is waiting and hour for no good reason.

And can we please STOP taking responsibility for design off the designers' shoulders?
 

Remove ads

Top