Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
UA to Become Weekly! Pendleton Ward Helped On New AP!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cyber-Dave" data-source="post: 7703189" data-attributes="member: 82132"><p>I said, "forget all the positive feedback," because, while you have seriously mischaracterized the feedback about the new ranger from these boards, even if you hadn't, your uncontextualized citation of my words completely missed the point of what I actually wrote and (in so doing) also mischaracterized my claim. I never said, in proper context, that the UA options have quality control because they are all well balanced. They are not! I said<em><strong> they are part of the quality control process</strong></em>. So, even if your mischaracterization of the UA ranger was accurate, what you wrote still made it look like you didn't bother reading my post or thinking about it before you quoted it. </p><p></p><p>The fact that the vast majority of the feedback about the ranger is positive is merely a cherry on this frustration sundae. And yes, the majority of the feedback about the ranger is positive. It pretty much amounts to, "great job, but X, Y, or Z feature need tweaking." "X, Y, and Z" usually refers to the following list of issues: too front-loaded; primaeval awareness is a little too strong; the damage buff from "greater favoured enemy" is granted a little too early. None of those, for the record, are egregious imbalances. Yes, additional tweaking is required. Again, however, <em>figuring what needs to be tweaked and how badly it needs to be tweaked is what the UA articles and subsequent polls are for.</em> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am sorry if I came across as "snarky." To be frank, cherry picking a quote out of my post and responding to it in a misleading manner that implicitly mischaracterizes the content of my post seems fairly snarky to me. Frustration over that action is what led to whatever quantity of snark my post included. But whatever. We can let bygones be bygones. Please, however, take the time to make sure that you are responding to posts appropriately. There is no point in arguing with somebody about whether the content of every UA article is well balanced or not when they have never said anything about every article being balanced.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cyber-Dave, post: 7703189, member: 82132"] I said, "forget all the positive feedback," because, while you have seriously mischaracterized the feedback about the new ranger from these boards, even if you hadn't, your uncontextualized citation of my words completely missed the point of what I actually wrote and (in so doing) also mischaracterized my claim. I never said, in proper context, that the UA options have quality control because they are all well balanced. They are not! I said[I][B] they are part of the quality control process[/B][/I]. So, even if your mischaracterization of the UA ranger was accurate, what you wrote still made it look like you didn't bother reading my post or thinking about it before you quoted it. The fact that the vast majority of the feedback about the ranger is positive is merely a cherry on this frustration sundae. And yes, the majority of the feedback about the ranger is positive. It pretty much amounts to, "great job, but X, Y, or Z feature need tweaking." "X, Y, and Z" usually refers to the following list of issues: too front-loaded; primaeval awareness is a little too strong; the damage buff from "greater favoured enemy" is granted a little too early. None of those, for the record, are egregious imbalances. Yes, additional tweaking is required. Again, however, [I]figuring what needs to be tweaked and how badly it needs to be tweaked is what the UA articles and subsequent polls are for.[/I] I am sorry if I came across as "snarky." To be frank, cherry picking a quote out of my post and responding to it in a misleading manner that implicitly mischaracterizes the content of my post seems fairly snarky to me. Frustration over that action is what led to whatever quantity of snark my post included. But whatever. We can let bygones be bygones. Please, however, take the time to make sure that you are responding to posts appropriately. There is no point in arguing with somebody about whether the content of every UA article is well balanced or not when they have never said anything about every article being balanced. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
UA to Become Weekly! Pendleton Ward Helped On New AP!
Top