Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7044867" data-attributes="member: 22779">Why is that an unreasonable response?The game is already set up, as [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] points out, that you can scale up complexity from very simple to quite complex.&nbsp; And people don't seem to be having a huge difficulty with it.Look, I get not wanting bloat.&nbsp; I really do.&nbsp; I LOVE the release schedule and the fact that the hobby is the healthiest it's been in a long, long time.&nbsp; So, yeah, I certainly don't want to go back to the days of blasting out class after class with little feedback from the fans.&nbsp; But, since the genie is already out of the bottle - we've gotten at least one new full class already - the Mystic - plus, what, a few dozen new sub classes between SCAG and the UA articles, it's not like adding one more is going to make the game go wahoonie shaped.&nbsp; Particularly given that the class' abilities already exist in some form in the game already.&nbsp; Not under one umbrella, sure, but, it's not like they're adding an entire new magic system (cough psion cough) or anything like that.Again, it's really hard not to see these arguments as self-serving.&nbsp; After all, if the issue is actually class bloat, then why aren't we seeing push back about the UA articles?&nbsp; I mean, good grief, the UA articles have essentially doubled (or thereabouts) the number of sub-classes in the game.&nbsp; That's not an insignificant addition.&nbsp; So, why is this particular bridge the bridge too far?As I mentioned in another one of these threads, I'd have a LOT more sympathy with folk's point of view, if it was consistent.&nbsp; But, it really doesn't look like it is.&nbsp; &quot;We HATE CLASS BLOAT!!&quot; but, it's okay to add twenty or thirty new subclasses.&nbsp; &quot;We HATE THESE MECHANICS!&quot;&nbsp; but, it's perfectly fine to have these mechanics tied to other classes.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm&nbsp; &nbsp; :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />&nbsp; I mean, seriously, at what point do we call an oblong excavation tool a shovel?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7044867, member: 22779"] Why is that an unreasonable response? The game is already set up, as [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] points out, that you can scale up complexity from very simple to quite complex. And people don't seem to be having a huge difficulty with it. Look, I get not wanting bloat. I really do. I LOVE the release schedule and the fact that the hobby is the healthiest it's been in a long, long time. So, yeah, I certainly don't want to go back to the days of blasting out class after class with little feedback from the fans. But, since the genie is already out of the bottle - we've gotten at least one new full class already - the Mystic - plus, what, a few dozen new sub classes between SCAG and the UA articles, it's not like adding one more is going to make the game go wahoonie shaped. Particularly given that the class' abilities already exist in some form in the game already. Not under one umbrella, sure, but, it's not like they're adding an entire new magic system (cough psion cough) or anything like that. Again, it's really hard not to see these arguments as self-serving. After all, if the issue is actually class bloat, then why aren't we seeing push back about the UA articles? I mean, good grief, the UA articles have essentially doubled (or thereabouts) the number of sub-classes in the game. That's not an insignificant addition. So, why is this particular bridge the bridge too far? As I mentioned in another one of these threads, I'd have a LOT more sympathy with folk's point of view, if it was consistent. But, it really doesn't look like it is. "We HATE CLASS BLOAT!!" but, it's okay to add twenty or thirty new subclasses. "We HATE THESE MECHANICS!" but, it's perfectly fine to have these mechanics tied to other classes. :erm: I mean, seriously, at what point do we call an oblong excavation tool a shovel? [/QUOTE]

Verification