agreed, this is my point…Hey, then 3e was balanced! If you don't like the disparity between fighter and quadratic wizards, they shouldn't have chosen fighter.
no, but if the level of disparity stays the same, then the two are compatible because it did not make Tasha incompatible with the PHB either
There are two different rule sets. I will not use two different rule sets simultaneously. That is not compatible. That is literally incompatible. Compatible mixes. If they are separate, no mixing has happened.
that might turn out to be true, I took it as the premise of my conclusion. If the premise ends up not being met then the rest does not follow either. To me that is too early to tell however
I love 3e. It was my favorite edition, but if you think it was balanced, perhaps we will never be able to come to an agreement here.
It can't stay the same. X+feat is objectively greater than X.
if it were one ruleset then we would not be talking about compatibility…
they both are in your game at the same time, that is mixing. Also just two posts or so ago you said
I can put oil and water in the same cup. Being in the same vessel doesn't make it compatible. Mixing and meshing are two different things.
that is not what I was saying. I said that if you choose a fighter when knowing that a wizard will become more powerful, then you cannot really complain about itI love 3e. It was my favorite edition, but if you think it was balanced, perhaps we will never be able to come to an agreement here.
not necessarily. Is A less than X + Y? You cannot say either way, you need specific values first.
and characters are not liquids
At a certain point, built in disparity is wrong. It's okay to have it to a degree, but someone shouldn't be forced to be way under someone else in order to play a class that they love, or else be forced not to play that class.
So you know that was an analogy, right? I wasn't saying that the two rules sets were literally liquids.
