Saying that 5e isn’t modular because of critical hits affecting paladins is a really patchy argument.
Look this is a completely ridiculous mischaracterisation of my post. I have to admit I've been considering a few times lately throwing up my hands and just giving up posting entirely due to that fact that people can't seem to be able to follow the difference between:
a) a point expressing a particular argument.
and
b) an example presenting a singular instance to help illustrate that general argument.
Or possibly because people just aren't actually reading posts properly before replying.
Generally the point precedes the example. The example is not generally proof of the point but rather an illustration. Generally, it will be indicated clearly if the example is considered strong enough to prove the point entirely on it's own. More often the point of the example is to help ensure the reader is able to grasp the point and thus avoid miscommunication.
This is standard communication.
To put things the other way and have the example somehow become the point either shows complete failure of comprehension or careless reading.
So let's go clearly through what was said.
But if you want a system to be modular then you have to ensure that space is designed into it for the more complex actions.
This is the basic topic sentence of paragraph 1 - it introuduces the overall argument - that - for a system to succeed at being modular it's insufficient for it to just be simple - some thought has to be put in to how it can be expanded for complexity. I then stated that 5E didn't do this. Now my example here,
might be mistaken by someone who hasn't followed the context of discussion in this and other threads as being intended my me to be sole and sufficient proof for that point. (Although the demands of charitable reading would tend to suggest that someone making this interpretation should check before so assuming such). In any case. That isn't what happened here.
I then went on to make the following argument at the beginning of the next paragraph:
Part of the issue with 5E in this regard is that while the core rules for resolution and combat are very simple. The whole class system is built on lots of exception based spells, powers and abilities. This means you really need to be aware of interactions from changing rules.
Note this is a general point. But of course, because it is general point I'm assuming the reader might be thinking "like what?" But note that the whole of the argument is basically in
this section. It's fairly simple - change one thing and it may interfere with class abilities. What follows is a singular example to
illustrate the basic point. I find it really hard to see how anyone could read it as being intended to solely prove that point on it's own. There is a clear progression here from the general to the particular with the clear implication that I at least intend the general point to apply in more circumstances then just the given example.
It this necessarily a slam dunk? No. One thing I could anticipate is that a reader may feel that while I imply there are multiple instances of the situation I describe, that in fact there are not. In that case, I might expect someone would ask for more examples (many of which have been brought up already by me and others in recent threads, perhaps even this one, but I wouldn't necessarily expect a reader to be aware of them).
Finally, the argument that you attribute to me, that a single instance affecting a single class is actually the cause of the a general issue (Maybe that's not what you meant but that's basically what you said, and what you attributed to me - so the onus is on you when trying to paraphrase others' arguments not to be so careless and slipshod) is actually a
really stupid argument.
Now the basic rules of charitable reading (which I would consider to be a basic ethical responsibility of anyone engaged in discussion) demand that if you believe that someone is making a
really stupid argument that you in fact first check whether you have actually misunderstood the person in question (which can be achieved by asking a simple question).
