Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 6929397" data-attributes="member: 6799660">I do not see how the two are related. I was also stating an opinion. Ifind the way this thread started as troubling and containing a preemptive hostility that was genuinely unnecessary.I am not a strong regular on Enworld, so I guess I have not been reading up. However, that is a very reasonable suggestion when first encountering someone saying they want more content. Whether it meets your needs is a different question Well, you buy and use anything at your own risk. Both TSR and WotC have put out some royal stinkers in probably every edition going back to the original Blackmoor expansion in '75 (or I suppose some people might say that Greyhawk was a stinker). Either way, do you see how I see a disconnect between 1) considering WotC a trusted source for gaming material, and 2) considering WotC's release schedule decisions highly questionable? The later I think would make the former less trusted, and thus favoring WotC material over 3pp a disconnect. However, it appears that the primary issue you are referencing is about whether it will be accepted as a player bringing it to a new DM's table, correct? That's certainly true. More DMs will trust WotC over johnny unknown. However, I certainly know that in 3e, I had plenty of occasion where a DM would ban specific WotC books or parts of books. Having the WotC brand was certainly no guarantee of approval. Were WotC to increase their output (especially in crunch) for 5e, might they not potentially include some of the same poorly thought out additions that made people accept 3e material only on a case-by-case basis? I know for me, the last thing I want 5e to do is turn into another 20 splats that I have to drag around only to also keep a notebook outlining which of the options or builds within that my DM will allow. That's certainly not a better position to be in than using homebrew. That's a direct expression of opinion, and I get that you likely disagree.</blockquote>

Verification