not everyone... there are plenty that agree with mme, but they do get shouted dowwn thread after thread...
There were maybe 4 people replying to you ands they all had the same take on the questions you were asking
Let's say for the sake of the argument that there are more and they get shouted down, that still means they are a small minority, otherwise the shouting down would not be possible / go the other way
maybe that 'trivial' to you change is something others find an issue.
except you can;t JUST... you need to house rule conditions, feats, races to go with that house rule "you can use this class from this older edition"
I gave what I consider a very simple rule of thumb, any table can of course do things differently, but the rule is easy to follow and the other replies to your questions independently used the same rule
1) use the char-independent rules from one 'edition' (e.g. conditions)
2) use chars (race, class, subclass, feats, ...) from one 'edition' for one char but allow chars from either 'edition' at the table. So a 2014 char uses the 2014 races, classes, subclasses, feats, etc. the 2024 char uses 2024 content exclusively, no mixing and matching
This is very simple to follow and only needs some minor edge cases to be resolved
no... YOU misunderstand the argument... a portion of the book can be removed from the book and with minor work dropped into the other... but the books as a whole do NOT work together. they don't build off each other, they are not compatible.
no, that just means the rules are not identical, it says nothing about compatibility. Heck Tasha's racial bonus rules are different from the PHB ones, does that mean the two are not compatible books? If so, why has no one brought this up in the last 3 or so years....
I am going to try to go to the wackiest extreme here to show what I mean...
I take the 2e wizard...
no one said 2e is compatible with 5e, so off to a good start... you also do mix and match (you take a 5e race, the 5e spells but the 2e spell slots...) so this is whacky, but I do not consider it much of an example for what we were saying. Sure, you can houserule anything, but there is no compatibility between a 2e char and a 5e char, you had to houserule a lot (and did) to get any semblance of that.
The whole point of compatibility is that this is not needed, if you do it anyway, that is your prerogative.
So basically you did everything you did in any of your posts and none of what everyone else said you should be doing in the replies to your questions (see my rules of thumb). To me this just shows that you do not really care what anyone says and the questions you asked were just rhetorical.
Sure, you can create an amalgamation and make it work, but compatibility means you do not need to do so. Incompatibility means you have to in order to make it work.
