Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bryan Vining" data-source="post: 926398" data-attributes="member: 7628">And being insulting doesn't make you witty <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I do not think what I said was extreme at all.  While the flaws were not obvious the day the books hit the shelf, that does nothing whatsoever to change the apparent consensus that there were enough of them on that day to warrant a revision and that those flaws did exist the day the books hit the shelf.  Neither does the fact that some (or perhaps most) consider the flaws minor alter this consensus.  As for a game not needing revision, I do not think such an animal exists (nor did I suggest as much, if you read carefully).  It's an impossibility as far as I'm concerned, since what is "perfect" for one person would not be perfect for everyone else.  I found the comments regarding me thinking that I'm some sort of rebel rather demeaning of you and insulting to me.  Clearly something I said angered you, else you'd not have had the desire to lambast me.  I suspected (and still do) that some of my comments would irritate others.  I held those statements to be true (for me) and still do.  My sense is that you are taking personally criticism of 3.5 and WotC.  This is inappropriate, as I was not addressing anything to do with you personally (unless, of course, you helped write the revision).  To summarize, my points were these:1.  WotC is releasing 3.5 first and foremost to increase their revenues.  2.  This is neither a good or bad thing necessarily, but it will irritate some D&D gamers, and those folks have every right to be irritated. Changing gears...That's an interesting bit about the scheduling of the revision, and I certainly had not been aware of that.  I don't know that its startling, though, since its mostly an acknowledgment that their product will need tweaking.  Strikes me as healthy.  We'll have to see how radical the changes are before a consensus can develop about whether this represents a revision or and edition change.  My mind is not made up, but it does appear that the changes are manifold, though they may all be small enough in impact that nothing major is changed.</blockquote>

Verification