NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 9225791" data-attributes="member: 6778210">Uh, people do say that all the time, they just don't say it in that direct a way, just like most people here aren't being like that. People tell us what 5E was designed for all the time compared to the critiques it gets.But also I find that to be a terrible comparison, because that doesn't match what is being shown: you can say that 4E solved something that might be a problem in 5E while still engaging with it, just like you could do the reverse. If I say that 4E solved their martial problem by given them at-wills and 5E should do that, that doesn't really conflict with the design constraints of 5E, especially given some of the playtest stuff we've seen. But that's not what is happening: instead, people are trying to apply some sort of "logic" to the thing that doesn't work because it's built on different principles.  Complaining about how something is "illogical" because in trying to narrow down how something works does miss the design of 4E removing barriers to be less restraining in its powers. This isn't about using one to critique the other, but rather the specific critique and how you approach it.This is a false dichotomy: just because something is a continuation doesn't suddenly mean you can disengage from new design and only look at it through the lens of the previous edition. We can do both to different degrees as required, thus we can look at it as D&D given that it has a bunch of aesthetic and even mechanical continuations while still engaging with what it's trying to do that's new. I don't see why this is so hard, yet I feel like people want to find some way to avoid actually talking about the mechanics on their own merits.I don't really see how it's backwards. Just because it's 15 years on doesn't mean the judgements weren't reflexive; we can see people trying to argue the logic of a game using the design principles of a different edition. Just because it's 15 years on doesn't mean it's not reflexive, either; it just mean it's a hardened reflex at this point, where people go to the same arguments. If you have broadened your horizons, cool, but I guess I'm not really addressing you, I'm addressing someone who is making arguments that have been largely repeated for the last 15 years about how things are "illogical" because they don't follow the previous conventions.</blockquote>

Verification