Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7048343" data-attributes="member: 996">I think that's a possibility worth discounting, since it requires that either the devs be incompetent and their system inadequate (since 4e was able to handle so much more, obviously it's possible) or that their whole 'uniting the fanbase' was an outright lie, and the actual agenda is driving fans of 4e away, and catering slavishly to the other side of the edition war.Not only are those extremely negative things to assume, they're even somewhat contradicted by the odd fact here or there.  For instance, Mike Mearls /also/ worked on 4e it's whole run, so he was competent enough to deal with such things back then.  For another, the game is filled with all sorts of little 4e-isms that, had the scorched-earth approach really been the intent, would also have been left out.Worse case, I think it's fair to assume that they did go ahead and appease that one side of the 'rift' (and, for that matter, the old-school side further on that didn't care for a lot of 3e-isms) in leaving some significant things (like Feats and 3e-style MCing) optional, and a few things, like the Warlord, out of the PH but open to later, even 'more optional,' inclusion.  But, I could be wrong (I have been many times before in trying to divine "WTF is WotC thinking?").  Time will tell.But, for now, benefit of a doubt. Well, you are posting an opinion, about game design, on a forum.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification