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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="see" data-source="post: 8189637" data-attributes="member: 10531">Some people have claimed that, yes. Including designers early on in the D&D Next process. Yet a game cannot be all things to all people. Every design decision limits what games will be supported, automatically excluding some.I'm simply suggesting that you reach the understanding that 6th edition is not going to fix things for you, because A) 5th edition is already what the ask-the-fans process produced, and B) the sales success of 5th edition is such that WotC/Hasbro is not going to be tempted to bold experimentation.6th edition will deal with things that the 5th edition fanbase considers problems, not what the people who preferred 4th edition do, because that's what makes sense for the sales-seeking publisher. Pinning your hopes on 6th edition is doing nothing but setting yourself up to be kicked in the teeth by what 6th edition is actually going to be.You're actively looking for hostility where none exists. "Vulnerable" is not an absolute, it's a comparative. You're opposed to starting characters being as vulnerable as they are in 5th. Call them "vulnerable characters", "highly vulnerable characters", "first level characters always at at death's door"; whatever label you like. Not wanting your characters to be that is a perfectly valid preference.It's also one that you shouldn't expect 6th edition to fix for you. The fan-feedback playtests for both original Pathfinder and for D&D Next tested starting characters who couldn't be killed that easily,  and decided against them. There's been no massive fanbase groundswell against it, and D&D sales have been doing so well there's no incentive for a sales-seeking publisher to strike out in the blind hope that a change will be more popular.</blockquote>

Verification