Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8728173" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I doubt seriously there was no managerial level between Mearls and the people you're talking about.You indicated they didn't feel betrayed until the 4e style support didn't materialize.  I think the people paying attention figured out that was never going to happen well before even the end of the "playtest".Thanks.  Had  a feeling that wasn't right.There were 4e fans that would at least project how something worked that worked for them personally as more of a universal good than was warranted.  But of course that was vastly under represented proportionate to the negative hyperbole and such (though back when the trenches were up, there were some comments lobbed at 3e fans that were probably just as hyperbolic, but by that point it was pretty much on.)Yeah, at least with quantitative magic items, you assume them in or you don't.  The closest you can do to have it both ways is the Pathfinder 2e approach of assuming them in, and then having a patch if you're not going to use them so the numbers come out approximately the same anyway.You'd get some weird cases where you'd get people who would try to, for example, defend the functionally useless/counterproductive CR system (which could be vaguely sensible at the bottom but became less and less so as levels accrued), but that was probably just reflexive nothing-is-ever-wrong-with-a-game-if-I-like-it.</blockquote>