Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7485464" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well, I can think of several reasons why not.1.&nbsp; By your own admission, it's unbalanced.&nbsp; There's zero chance they're going to publish that when it's clearly unbalanced.&nbsp; You're granting a player, essentially, two characters, or about one and three quarters.&nbsp; In a game where you have zero followers or anything like that.&nbsp; There's a reason we don't have the Leadership feat anymore.2.&nbsp; They have already done a revised beastmaster and apparently, it's pretty functional.&nbsp; What would be the point of going beyond that?&nbsp; 3.&nbsp; Fencing in a class by saying it's &quot;too powerful&quot; is no different than leaving it in the Unearthed Arcana.&nbsp; It's still not going to be AL legal, by your own admission.&nbsp; Essentially, what's the difference between leaving it in UA or putting it in an &quot;official&quot; book but then telling everyone that it's a broken class?4.&nbsp; What are they gaining here?&nbsp; Where's the upshot for WotC? I get that it makes YOU happy, but, I'm sorry, who cares?&nbsp; It's going to cause nothing but problems at tables as players will want to play this, but, the DM shoots the idea down, leading to endless whining and kvetching.&nbsp; And all we're going to get is endless arguments about how to &quot;fix&quot; the class so this or that player's DM will let it be played at the table.If this is what you consider good game design, I'm pretty happy to leave it in WotC's hands.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7485464, member: 22779"] Well, I can think of several reasons why not. 1. By your own admission, it's unbalanced. There's zero chance they're going to publish that when it's clearly unbalanced. You're granting a player, essentially, two characters, or about one and three quarters. In a game where you have zero followers or anything like that. There's a reason we don't have the Leadership feat anymore. 2. They have already done a revised beastmaster and apparently, it's pretty functional. What would be the point of going beyond that? 3. Fencing in a class by saying it's "too powerful" is no different than leaving it in the Unearthed Arcana. It's still not going to be AL legal, by your own admission. Essentially, what's the difference between leaving it in UA or putting it in an "official" book but then telling everyone that it's a broken class? 4. What are they gaining here? Where's the upshot for WotC? I get that it makes YOU happy, but, I'm sorry, who cares? It's going to cause nothing but problems at tables as players will want to play this, but, the DM shoots the idea down, leading to endless whining and kvetching. And all we're going to get is endless arguments about how to "fix" the class so this or that player's DM will let it be played at the table. If this is what you consider good game design, I'm pretty happy to leave it in WotC's hands. [/QUOTE]

Verification