D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Micah Sweet]

Sorry, but you're just wrong.

They can't be wrong. They have their opinion, and you have yours.

 

[Corinnguard]

And if player A wants to play a fighter, but doesn't want the complexity of maneuvers, they can play the PHB fighter. Player B, who wants to play a fighter but does like maneuvers, can play the A5E fighter. Nothing is lost, and player preference is supported.

I know, I must sound insane, right?

Are you considered mad by your fellow Tinker Gnomes?

 

[TwoSix]

They can't be wrong. They have their opinion, and you have yours.

When they question my sanity, they certainly can be wrong.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

They can't be wrong. They have their opinion, and you have yours.

I could not read them, because they are blocked. But opinions are not always right. Some opinions are just wrong.
For example: someone's opinion might be that it is easier to calculate circles if we set pi to 3,2.

Some tried to make this a law in 1897. Indiana Pi Bill.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When they question my sanity, they certainly can be wrong.

I think they were talking about their own sanity.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I could not read them, because they are blocked. But opinions are not always right. Some opinions are just wrong.
For example: someone's opinion might be that it is easier to calculate circles if we set pi to 3,2.

Some tried to make this a law in 1897. Indiana Pi Bill.

Accepted in principle, but not in this case.

 

[James Gasik]

The bolded portion in the quote above is where I have strong disagreement, and is the attitude I'm arguing against.

You can have a fighter A and a fighter B that are distinct and yet roughly equivalent in power. (Certainly within less of a power delta than, say, rolling for stats would cause.)

There is no inherent value in having two characters with the same class be exactly the same. In fact, it's a net negative because it damages verisimiltude. I care about my settings being realistic (or at least fantasy realistic), and thousands of people having the same class with the exact same abilities isn't realistic.

Wait, it damages verisimilitude? So if two humans go through basic training to become soldiers in the king's army, and become 1st level Fighters, it would damage verisimilitude if they were both experts in using the same weapons and armor if they were assigned to a squad of pikemen?

 

[TwoSix]

Are you considered mad by your fellow Tinker Gnomes?

<shrug> From my perspective, others are arguing that if your friend can't afford the new book, you need to kick them out of their game rather than just let them use a 2014 paladin or druid, because it's "too confusing" to have a two different versions of the same class.

If that's insane, I'm quite comfortable in the asylum.

 

[TwoSix]

Wait, it damages verisimilitude? So if two humans go through basic training to become soldiers in the king's army, and become 1st level Fighters, it would damage verisimilitude if they were both experts in using the same weapons and armor if they were assigned to a squad of pikemen?

It damages verisimilitude that every fighter, of which there are presumably thousands in the world, all learn to be proficient in heavy armor and every weapon known to man, and then learn an ability to attack super fast once during a fight once they train a little more.

You can't seriously be arguing that strict classes enhance verisimilitude? That's, like, the #1 reason that people started point-buy and skill-based games.

 

[MoonSong]

1st edition Pathfinder kept what worked in 3.5e D&D, fixed what didn't work, and then added in a lot of new stuff. It's kind of how it earned it's nickname of 3.75e. It's compatible with 3.5e, but only to a certain point.

As for details, you better ask a devil.

I still prefer 3.5 to PF1. A lot of changes are cool and welcome, but they change the game too much for my taste and some extra stuff is either superfluous or forces you to wait unless you want to feel bad.