Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8985169" data-attributes="member: 18">Worth noting that, if this an accurate transcription of what Crawford said, it's utter nonsense on his part.You no more or less "had to" do any of that with 3.5E than you will "have to" with 1D&D. This propaganda of the purest and cheapest form. It's a straight-up lie to say you had could run 3E adventures with 3.5E books/characters. Just ridiculous. You could absolutely use a character made with 3E in a game where everyone else was 3.5E. You could even do that with 1E and 2E - and we did! We have 1E classes at the 2E table sometimes, particularly where that 1E class didn't exist anymore in 2E. It's an outright lie to say you "had to replace your books" with 3.5E. It was entirely optional.So this really gets to the core of things - If it's not a new edition, nor was 2E. If it's not a X.5 edition, nor was 3.5E. Just nonsensical to suggest otherwise based on their own logic and their own specific examples.To be clear, I approve of their general direction, but this is absolute propaganda of a really truly propagandistic kind - not merely an opinion, but a counterfactual claim that's easily disproven but that a lot of people just want to believe.But here's a positive:That's exactly the right sort of direction. Directly away from the cheapness and rush of 5E.</blockquote>