Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marshall" data-source="post: 5553803" data-attributes="member: 765">One article, 4 player options, 1 ridiculously overpower, 2 with gaping rules loopholes, 1 underperforming. The only way to claim that quality hasnt gone down is to day that the quality was crap to start with. There is a huge difference between products that I dont like and bad quality products. I have no interest in the DS setting, but it was a quality product, HoS and these themes are just outright poor quality products...and this is where continuing to market to the essentials crowd is a failure in its own right. Since the stated goal of essentials was to cut down on the options for the players that were overwhelmed by the bloat, Why the heck do you think its a good idea to create more options in that style?Essentials is bush-league 4e, when you want to expand the options on essentials you promote full on 4e, you dont confuse the issue by complicating the basic set. Noone has an issue with the fluff, its the mechanics that are crap. Again, expanding the mechanical options for those that like NOT HAVING OPTIONS is counterproductive. Desiging options for those not inclined to use options is stupidity. So why take them into account when designing themes?Idea vs. Execution. Too many engineers, not enough techs to make it work.</blockquote>