Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
One of my points. By now, that's a lot of noobs.Not just old people. The noobs in my area who started with 5e are having the same heated discussions about edition.
One of my points. By now, that's a lot of noobs.Not just old people. The noobs in my area who started with 5e are having the same heated discussions about edition.
I've been saying, "I don't like this" the whole time. One of many reasons I don't like it is that it's a commercial decision dressed up as creative freedom. They have never said that these books are intended as replacements for the existing ones, but they clearly are. I'm not confused, but I am irritated.
Regardless, its not really WotC 5e as it has been, and pretending that it is and the differences are just neutral choices is, on some level, disingenuous.I find tgeybe been a bit meh around claiming backwards compatibility. It's not except at a superficial level eg skills.
There's going to be big power differences between 2014 and 24 material. That's before we have seen the monsters.
Irs not a 5.5 but more than a 5.25 imho.
Regardless, its not really WotC 5e as it has been, and pretending that it is and the differences are just neutral choices is, on some level, disingenuous.
I really don't think they're pretending it is "5e as it has been" - their goal (and they've been pretty clear about this, IMO) is that it is "5e, but with some quality of life improvements".Regardless, its not really WotC 5e as it has been, and pretending that it is and the differences are just neutral choices is, on some level, disingenuous.
Here's my thought. Any version of D&D published by TSR or WotC is D&D because...they own the IP and have the right to do so, despite some of those being very different games. Any product that is broadly compatible with any of those versions (like Pathfinder to 3.5, Level Up to 5e, or many OSR games to B/X or 1e) are also D&D as far as I'm concerned, even if those D&D-adjacent games are not compatible with each other (because those games are based on different D&D games). Basically, I want them to share real mechanical links to any official D&D game, past or present, for me to call them D&D. PF2E has IMO drifted too far off that signal for me to consider it D&D any longer.
Obviously all of this my opinion.
While I can't recall what I equipped my 2e Fighter, I do remember developing an obsession on wanting to equip my 3e Fighter with a Two-Bladed Sword (or Swordstaff as it was called in the Arcana Unearthed RPG) thanks to a certain character in Star Wars episode one.Basically you had 4. Mostly longsword, dagger, longbow and maybe a mace. If you were meta gaming.
It's pretty clear that the edition mixing as chosen by players thing being discussed is so far beyond made by tinkerer gnome standards when its defense needs to tip toe around it by using more reasonable looking abstract descriptions like "great in combat" or that bolded bit of the quote.Players will choose what is right for them. Some players that want to be great in combat will choose any broken combo they can. Others won't dive deep enough to figure out the broken combos. And others will actively avoid them and instead play based off the story and their roleplay. None of those are wrong.
What will not happen though is a player won't say: There are two rangers here. One is clearly better. I am going to choose the one that is worse.
That's still not quite what we've been discussing though and it's still dancing around it. I'll quote the meat & potatoes of 506 to brush away the flowery wording and efforts to villainize the dm not allowing literally anything as some sort of "authoritarian table" though "Metaphors aside, it's entirely on the DM to present a rationale why they're excluding either book". Calling a refusal to allow edition mixing without a vote between 3-5 wolves and a sheep an "authoritarian table" is quite an example of the sort of toxic entitlement I described in 514.For most DMs, it is not an authoritarian table. It is a group game, and everyone gets a vote. So while you may not want to deal with power creep, the players might want to have a (fill in the class) that they consider better.
Yeah, but that's only because you just want WotC to "be honest with you" and you've said many, many times and keeping saying it. You have this fascination with WotC "coming clean" and telling you exactly what you believe is going on... and if they don't, then it's just "marketing spin" or whatever other phrases you've been throwing around for the entire time One D&D has been a thing.They have never said that these books are intended as replacements for the existing ones, but they clearly are. I'm not confused, but I am irritated.