D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[ArchfiendBobbie]

This is just silly... nothing you've said above shows they don't consider canon at all during product creation and lore. I could just as easily say the fact that feats are now optional there is no AEDU structure to every class and THAC0 is gone shows they have absolutely no regard for mechanics... and I'd be just as incorrect as you are.

Yet, nothing you're saying is even attempting to refute my statement that there's no evidence they do consider canon during product creation or attempting to provide any evidence. The ThaC0 argument tends to fall apart when you consider that ACs have been consistent in how they've functioned since 3E came out, while more lore-dependent items (such as monsters) have not been nearly as consistent.

In order for me to be wrong, you need more than just attempting to dismiss what is presented and using a weak argument that falls apart at the first piece of evidence.

 

[Imaro]

Yet, nothing you're saying is even attempting to refute my statement that there's no evidence they do consider canon during product creation or attempting to provide any evidence. The ThaC0 argument tends to fall apart when you consider that ACs have been consistent in how they've functioned since 3E came out, while more lore-dependent items (such as monsters) have not been nearly as consistent.

You've given no proof for your stance I don't have to prove a negative... you've yet to provide proof fro your own statement. Here's one for you... how consistent have the mechanics for weapons been across editions?... class abilities? How about skills? All of these mechanics have changed across every edition. See I can cherry pick things too.

As to your AC comment I beg to differ. You do realize that in 3e you add Dex to AC but in 4e you add the higher of Dex or Int... right? That's a difference in mechanics right there.


In other words AC is called the same thing but the mechanics for calculating it aren't the same in every edition.

In order for me to be wrong, you need more than just attempting to dismiss what is presented and using a weak argument that falls apart at the first piece of evidence.

No in order for you to be wrong I just need to show you can't support your assertion... which you haven't. both lore and mechanics have changed drastically over the lifetime of D&D... some particulars more than others but there's no evidence either way (unless you work for WotC or have some kind of insider info we are missing) that lore is more susceptible to change than mechanics.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

You've given no proof for your stance I don't have to prove a negative... you've yet to provide proof fro your own statement. Here's one for you... how consistent have the mechanics for weapons been across editions?... class abilities? How about skills? All of these mechanics have changed across every edition. See I can cherry pick things too.

As to your AC comment I beg to differ. You do realize that in 3e you add Dex to AC but in 4e you add the higher of Dex or Int... right? That's a difference in mechanics right there.

In other words AC is called the same thing but the mechanics for calculating it aren't the same in every edition.

I've provided no proof that you won't just try to dismiss as irrelevant. That is not the same thing as providing no proof.

Mechanics for weapons have been pretty consistent from 3E on. Just like how armor's been pretty consistent.

You could add Int to AC in 3E as well. It required a feat or class feature. But it was still an option. If you want a source for this off the top of my head, pick up Complete Warrior and give it a read; there's multiple options in that book.

The mechanics of calculating AC have not changed. It's just "here's the base amount, add your bonuses and armor onto it, here's the result." What the bonuses are have changed a bit, but the mechanics of generating AC have been stable.

No in order for you to be wrong I just need to show you can't support your assertion... which you haven't. both lore and mechanics have changed drastically over the lifetime of D&D... some particulars more than others but there's no evidence either way (unless you work for WotC or have some kind of insider info we are missing) that lore is more susceptible to change than mechanics.

You've not shown I can't support my assertion. All you've shown is that you won't accept what I've posted or provide anything to refute it.

At this point, I don't think we're going to go anywhere, since we're now going in circles. Shall we agree to disagree and stop filling the thread with pointless arguing?

 

[Imaro]

I've provided no proof that you won't just try to dismiss as irrelevant. That is not the same thing as providing no proof.

No you've literally provided no proof that supports a claim that more lore has been changed than mechanics over the lifetime of D&D...

Mechanics for weapons have been pretty consistent from 3E on. Just like how armor's been pretty consistent.

3e... you do realize D&D started way before 3e right. And no weapons didn't function the same way in 3e vs 4e... 4e had weapon properties... 3e didn't.

You could add Int to AC in 3E as well. It required a feat or class feature. But it was still an option.

So... mechanically it was different.

The mechanics of calculating AC have not changed. It's just "here's the base amount, add your bonuses and armor onto it, here's the result." What the bonuses are have changed a bit, but the mechanics of generating AC have been stable.

No in 4e the basic way to calculate AC was to use the higher of Int or Dex... that's not the case in 3e or 5e. That is what we call a difference in mechanics.

You've not shown I can't support my assertion. All you've shown is that you won't accept what I've posted or provide anything to refute it.

Nope what I've shown is that the mechanics change every edition just like lore... now it's on you to show some proof that one changes more, which you have failed to do.

At this point, I don't think we're going to go anywhere, since we're now going in circles. Shall we agree to disagree and stop filling the thread with pointless arguing?

Eh, I agree that you haven't proven your earlier assertion. If that's agreeing to disagree so be it.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

No you've literally provided no proof that supports a claim that more lore has been changed than mechanics over the lifetime of D&D...

Which is a claim you just made up. I never made such a claim.

3e... you do realize D&D started way before 3e right. And no weapons didn't function the same way in 3e vs 4e... 4e had different weapon properties that 3e didn't.

What weapon properties? Every weapon I've compared is the same properties between the two editions.

So... mechanically it was different.

Not really. How you acquired it was different, but mechanically it worked the same way.

No in 4e the basic way to calculate AC was to use the higher of Int or Dex... that's not the case in 3e or 5e. That is what we call a difference in mechanics.

Which in what way refutes that the bonuses have changed? Int and Dex are bonuses. 4E still had a base AC (10, in that edition) that you added the bonuses onto.

Nope what I've shown is that the mechanics change every edition just like lore... now it's on you to show some proof that one changes more, which you have failed to do.

Which is an argument invented by you. I stated they don't take canon into consideration when designing the core mechanics... not that they change canon more than core mechanics. And then provided examples of core mechanics changes that outright contradicted existing canon or made existing canon impossible to play.

Eh, I agree that you haven't proven your earlier assertion. If that's agreeing to disagree so be it.

Considering you have proven you don't even know what my earlier assertion is, I find this humorous.

 

[SkidAce]

Does this thread even stay true to its own canon as established in the first 100 pages?

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Does this thread even stay true to its own canon as established in the first 100 pages?

No. At this point, I think we're in the middle of Crisis of Infinite Arguments and about to do another continuity reboot.

 

[Shasarak]

Does this thread even stay true to its own canon as established in the first 100 pages?

I think so. On one side you have people that follow the canon that they like and on the other you have those who dont.

A classic battle of Law vs Chaos.

 

[Imaro]

Which is a claim you just made up. I never made such a claim.

Your whole argument was based on the fact that mechanics were held in a higher regard than lore... your supporting arguments have based around how much lore has changed throughout the editions and yet lore changing more than mechanics (i.e. being held in lower regard by the designers and developers of the game) doesn't summarize your argument...is that what you are claiming now?

What weapon properties? Every weapon I've compared is the same properties between the two editions.

Which weapons in 3e & 5e had the Brutal property again?

Not really. How you acquired it was different, but mechanically it worked the same way.

SO the mechanics to determine AC were different.

Which in what way refutes that the bonuses have changed? Int and Dex are bonuses. 4E still had a base AC (10, in that edition) that you added the bonuses onto.

So your actual claim is that base AC didn't change because AC actually did...

Which is an argument invented by you. I stated they don't take canon into consideration when designing the core mechanics... not that they change canon more than core mechanics. And then provided examples of core mechanics changes that outright contradicted existing canon or made existing canon impossible to play.

Yep and I've provided examples of mechanics changing...again what is your proof that they hold mechanics in higher regard as opposed to canon?

Considering you have proven you don't even know what my earlier assertion is, I find this humorous.

If your assertion is that they hold cannon in higher regard... your examples are all numerous ways in which cannon has changed... I think it's reasonable to assume you're trying to drive home the fact that it changes more often. But maybe I was totally off base if so then I've mis-stated your earlier assertion... what exactly is listing out changes to lore proof of again? especially since we have just as many changes to mechanics...

 

[pemerton]

precisely no care at all was directed toward how badly the lore of Eberron was being screwed over by the way magic items are handled in 5E

I saw you make this point upthread as well.

It's an interesting one, that I don't think I've seen before. I don't know Eberron very well, but am I right in thinking that the basis for what you are saying is that Eberron assumes something like a "magitech" economy?