OSR D&D 5e OSR backwards compatibility

[Mistwell]

Let's drop the personal comments, please, Mark.

You thought taking a snarky swipe at everyone who disagreed with you, claiming they were a symbol of the devolution of the internet into uselessness, wasn't personal?

Yes Morrus, how about we do drop the personal comments. Your entire thesis seemed to be that people shouldn't be attributing bad motive where there isn't any - while you seem to be attributing bad motive where there isn't any.

 

[Agamon]

You know, you could try and understand what people were saying, rather than devolve into further cynicism.

An ironic statement, Mistwell. Some people could also go back to the blog and understand what the blogger was saying; that backwards compatibility should be possible, even if the numbers are a bit off. Not the opposite, as some have ascribed the blog to say here.

If you don't believe me, check the first couple comments under the blog post. Someone said that it's easy to convert AD&D to 5e. The math is just a bit off, but it works. To which the blogger replies, yep, that's the conclusion I came to. The disparity comes at higher levels. And as he said in his blog, we don't have the full story of high levels yet, so it's quite possible it's all good.

 

[Morrus]

You thought taking a snarky swipe at everyone who disagreed with you, claiming they were a symbol of the devolution of the internet into uselessness, wasn't personal?

Yes Morrus, how about we do drop the personal comments. Your entire thesis seemed to be that people shouldn't be attributing bad motive where there isn't any - while you seem to be attributing bad motive where there isn't any.

I apologize. I was on my phone, and didn't have access to the colour controls. I wasn't clear. I meant to say:

Drop the personal comments, please.

For clarity, that includes personal comments about me AND the author of the article.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I really wanted to talk about this article, too.

Maybe the forum needs a system where the thread-derailing arguments are spun off into a special sub-forum, while the thread can continue to be about what it was originally about.

 

[Agamon]

And, I just noticed the P.S. added at the bottom. Way ta go, guys....

 

[Morrus]

And, I just noticed the P.S. added at the bottom. Way ta go, guys....

Yeah. It's frankly embarrassing. While I can't speak for anyone else in this thread, I apologise to the Raging Owlbear for the way people here have acted. This, I hope, is not typical of EN World.

 

[Ruzak]

I'm usually embarrassed by the personal comments made to other ENWorld posters, but those directed outside of the forum are even worse.

 

[MerricB]

I've removed my stupid comments in my first post. My profound apologies to Marty Walser for making them.

 

[Wyckedemus]

I would like to offer my apologies to the author of the research, Marty Walser. I can see that he has since scratched out the word "efficacy" in the article and replaced it with "progression" which now accurately reflects his research and is no longer accidentally claiming something else. I very much appreciate the clarification, and it defuses all my concerns.

It's funny how a single word can inflame the frustration of others. We've all been there...

But as I said before, I think Marty's research is interesting, and worthy of discussion. To wit, I think Dausuul in Post #53 has the heart of what it takes to translate older adventures into 5E.

... in my opinion.

 

[DDNFan]

That needs to be a graph!

View attachment 62024

My 1st level 4e character had +11 to hit. By level 30 he'd have something like +44 to hit, and maybe 44 AC.

Seems weird to not include the most extreme edition in this respect. Are facts relating to 4th allowed here or not? Because Bounded Accuracy is a foundation of 5th edition, and it's there for a good reason.

The only treadmill one should get on is one that keeps you fit.