Search results

I mean, they can say New Coke is the same as old Coke, but it didn't stop the consumers from disagreeing. It's why we have Classic now. They also say that about Vernors and how it tastes nowadays, but I'm a bit too young to be fully able to comment there. Food is terrible for this sort of...

Sure, but one book had been out less than 3 years, this one will have been out more than 10. That probably played a disproportionate part of that response. The context of what this could have been (or could be, I suppose, given that we aren't to the end of it yet), I don't think that example...

I really think the whole "is it a new edition" argument is less about what you actually call it as much as a desire to move harder towards the 2024 version, while others really value having full backwards compatibility with the 2014 edition. I'm not sure I believe that Wizards will be able to...

Oh no no no. I get that, too: if something looks weird, I open the post in an Incognito tab to figure out what the ghost conversation is. :)

Sure, I would expect some back-of-the-book guidance on such stuff. I just... I have disagreements with continuing this sort of thing because I think the game would benefit from a cleaner start here. A decade is a long time for games rules, I'd love to see Wizards be able to more freely use what...

Oh absolutely. Hard agree.

Sure. I mean, who knows what we are going to get. Though man, I do hope the Weapon Mastery system gets changed up a bit because it's rough as it is right now.

I'm less worried about WotC sending people to enforce rules as much as allowing for a clean design space and less workload on the DM. You can play what you play, but what the Core rules should be is a solid ground to walk upon, not one that shifts depending on whether someone is bringing a...

Part of that probably stems from the start of the playtest where they were doing more interesting, stronger changes than they seem to be doing now. Like, some of the stuff there did feel more drastic compared to what it feels like we are going to get, and that sort of feeling probably carries...

I don't need that explanation, that was for @Remathilis and people like him who desire one. If all they need to get on board is an explanation, I have no reservations in just giving them one.

Magic is in everything and everyone because magic is just a manifestation of life. At a certain level all creatures have the ability to channel changes in reality. Wizards can do it by directly shaping magic: through knowledge, they can shape magic into different effects and alter things. For...

I feel like this is the "cutting the baby" sort of moment, where you really can't revise the rules without invalidating things. I also feel like that's more the argument for some of us than what it's being called: in trying to keep everything, you end up making it so that improvements might not...

It's almost like marketing and public perception are two different things. :unsure:

For a second I thought this was a McDowell's reference. Or maybe it is and the sesame seed joke is reversed.

Meeeeeeh. The Monk has been alright, it's biggest constraint was locking so many good things behind ki, which it never had enough of. My way around that was just adding one's proficiency bonus to their ki pool. I will say the Fizban model for monks was interesting, though I really think each...

I just think they're likely overstating how compatible things will remain over time. I suppose I see it more as marketing pitch than lie, with the move over time likely to be towards designs that fit the original less and less... classwise, that is. I don't think this really applies to the...

I don't think it was as much an argument was about compatibility as much as what it entailed to say you could use both, as well as if you thought it was a good idea. Some did, some didn't. But let's leave the argument in the closed topics.

I'll be honest, I really cared less about how the idea of it being an edition change or not as much as I disagreed with the notion that it would be less confusing to not change. Apparently heels got dug on on the topic and everyone decided that it was suddenly a maximalist position of sorts...

When you say someone is making a mistake, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a disaster. It's just that you think they're making a mistake. People equate too many critiques as being maximalist when they really aren't.

No, they are going to be arguing why they can't have what they feel is the better version of the Fireball spell because you let two of them exist because one is overpowered (As mentioned by the authors themselves) and the newly balanced one is, well, obviously worse because it is balanced...