The two of you seem to be talking past each other. You seem to be arguing the mechanics, and he seems to be arguing the setting assumptions. Yes, you're correct that none of the mechanics are in conflict with prior game mechanics. Yes, he's right that some of the setting assumptions are in conflict with some of the prior setting assumptions.
I’m pretty they’re arguing that both mechanics and setting assumptions are contradictory between the “new paradigm” and the PHB game.
A lot of people I've seen on this site feel that Tasha's represented a least something like a edition shift, especially when they immediately dropped the "it's optional" story and moved forward with it (as I believe they always intended). You literally can't imagine someone feeling that way?
That feeling is irrational. I can absolutely imagine irrational conclusions. I cannot imagine any rational set of reasoning that leads to the above conclusion.
okay, so you don't think they made new rules to replace old ones?
No. They made variant races and monsters.
and again... this is now going forward the new way they do things. Nothing invaladated 1e, or 2e, or 3e, or 3.5, or 4e... we just got new ways fo doing things going forward... the fact that you still own your 1e book doesn't make 1e into 5e.
You’ve move the goalposts, but I’ll address this anyway, below.
i akcknoladge and disagree
You didn’t acknowledge it, you replied as if I had made a completely different statement.
or you are arguing just to argue...
That’s rich
so by this train of thought since nothing 5e did replaced a rule from 4e, it just was a new variant going forward it is not a new edition... we both know that isn't true.
This doesn’t follow from what I said. It is in fact a strawman argument.
5e explicitly replaced 4e as a new edition. It made 4e no longer official, it’s canon no longer the official canon.
For 5e to not be a new edition, the rules of 5e would have to be official part of 4e, which wouldn’t even work because the basic math doesn’t line up, abilities reference rules that are different, etc.
now we can address weather these changes themselves make it a new edition, or if they point to larger changes... but can we please not act like going forward they are going to just be a variant rule like "how long a rest is"
They are a variant rule. The only thing that could change that is them making the original write ups invalid via errata.
feats are optional... so adventures can be run with or without feats. How long a rest is had varriant rules... both have defualt rules (no feats, and 1hr/8hrs) if they change the defualt to be yes feats are always in and rests are now 5 min short rests and 1 hour long rests, then going forward that is a change.
Sure. Nothing remotely like that has occurred, however. Instead, the equivalent of “your DM might choose to use this variant rule, allowing a short rest to take about 15 minutes. The duration of an ability that can be done as part of a short rest does not change. In such a case, the short rest can be taken at any time during the time it takes to use the ability in question.” has been published. Which is…not a change.
if a new way of doiung something is put forward, and it is now the assumed defualt, how is that not a change?
The original is still official, ergo the new way is an addition, not a change.
if tomorrow they put out a new book where instead of rolling 1d20 everyone rolls 1d12+1d8 and you only crit on BOTH a nat 12 and a Nat 8 but only crit fail on 2 nat 1s.... well then that is just variant not a change?
You mean actually changing a general rule, non-optionally? Sure, that’s a change. You know “the rules for player a Duergar” aren’t a general rule, right? And that having two options for playing Duergar isn’t the same as them changing how it works to play a Duergar?
Again, you are reading things here that are not.
No. I’m not. Your behavior apparently doesn’t match your intent, but the intent doesn’t change what the behavior is.