Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 9431588" data-attributes="member: 59816">Hey, I'm no WotC-apologist (see me in the thread on Video Takedowns). I'm also extremely critical of corporations in general and of late-stage capitalism. I think it's bad for business. I honestly believe that the pursuit of next quarter's profit growth nearly always destroys the potential for profit in the next-next quarter, or the quarter after that. Or put simply, continuous exponential growth is impossible and pursuing it will almost always result in inevitable decline.Smart business, to me, would be to go for sustained profit, with careful, considered, measured growth down the line.For example, one should NEVER insult their current customers while trying to pursue new ones! To me, that's insane.Okay. I don't agree. Let's leave it at that.Of course, but it's not an insult to trust us to understand their messaging. Of course, they didn't take into account the misinformation campaigns working against them. And they're terrible at being really straight forward, I'll grant.You're conflating two different things. I'm not saying that they won't keep updating the rules of the game. I'm saying that they want to stop using the borked numbering system.Do you remember when Mearls (I think it was) said that they discovered that when they went for PHB2 in 4e, that they found that it was common in "mainstream" (IE non-FLGSes) stores to find that customers thought that it REPLACED PHB1 rather than added to it?This is different than that, of course, but my point is: You might be surprised by what is clear and unclear across larger swathes of people, than say, what is clear and unclear places like here on these boards.People here would generally LOVE "5.5e" to be the name. But if it was UNIVERSALLY true that it's a good name, WotC would use it. (Not that WotC can't make stupid mistakes - we all know that they absolutely can, but they're not doing it here).I suppose that if these new books crash and burn like 4e did (or worse) than they might call a future product 6e. But see above - they can produce what would effectively be 6e and NOT CALL IT THAT. And we can gnash our teeth on these boards and argue over whether they should have called it 6e or not.We're in agreement that the rules will continue to be updated. The gamer in me likes more change, rather than less. The retailer likes the idea of backwards compatibility. I'm at odds with myself.I can't say that I disagree with much of this, other than that you CAN do it with iterative updates, but it's harder and takes time. I'm not sure that enough of the fanbase cares about the caster/martial disparity (I'm with you on it, but we might be outnumbered).</blockquote>

Verification